Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or re-litigate issues decided on merits.

The applicant’s late husband, Ram Chandra, was a regularized Safaiwala in the North Central Railway

He was removed from service on 27.06.2000 following disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence totaling 525 days between 1997 and 2000

He died on 08.01.2009

The applicant challenged the removal through O.A. No. 91/2013, which was dismissed on merits by the Tribunal on 29.11.2021, finding the penalty proportionate and the inquiry valid

The applicant filed the present Review Application in 2026, accompanied by a delay condonation application (M.A. No. 50/2026)

The delay was attributed to poverty, the COVID-19 pandemic, the applicant’s illness (paralysis), and a house fire

1. Whether the inordinate delay in filing the Review Application can be condoned under Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987

2. Whether the non-consideration of certain service particulars and subsequent events (death of the employee and non-payment of retiral benefits) constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review of the order dated 29.11.2021

The court applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, and Rule 17(1) of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987, which mandate that a Review Application must be filed within thirty days of the order

It relied on K. Ajit Babu vs. Union of India (1997) 6 SCC 473, establishing that review is limited to the discovery of new evidence or errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise

Furthermore, it cited the Full Bench decision in G. Narasimha Rao vs. Regional Joint Director of School Education (2005) 4 SLR 720, holding that Tribunals cannot condone delay in filing reviews beyond the stipulated period in the absence of specific provisions

The Tribunal first addressed the issue of limitation, noting that the Review Application was filed several years after the original order of 29.11.2021

It found the applicant’s explanation for the delay—poverty, illness, and fire—lacked specific dates or supporting material to constitute "sufficient cause"

Citing G. Narasimha Rao, the Tribunal observed its own restricted power to condone delay in review proceedings

On the merits of the review, the Tribunal held that the applicant’s contentions regarding service history and the circumstances of the husband’s absence were essentially attempts to re-argue and re-appreciate facts already adjudicated in the Original Application

The Tribunal emphasized that a review is not an appellate power; since the original order was based on a detailed inquiry report and admitted unauthorized absence, there was no "error apparent on the face of the record"

Consequently, the Review Application was also dismissed both on the grounds of limitation and lack of merit, as the applicant failed to demonstrate any patent error or clerical mistake in the original order dated 29.11.2021

No order as to costs was made