Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reappreciate facts or seek rehearing on merits.

Rais Ali, the original applicant in OA No. 3480/2024, had challenged his dismissal and the consequential departmental proceedings before the Tribunal.

The OA was allowed by order dated 6 November 2025, inter alia, on the ground that the appellate authority could not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s exoneration, relying on P. Narayana & Ors. v. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal & Ors.

Rukhsana Khatoon, Rais Ali’s wife and the complainant whose allegations concerning his alleged second marriage had led to the departmental proceedings, was not a party to the OA.

She filed the present Review Application contending that the Tribunal had failed to consider the order dated 29 May 2023, Rule 25(5)(b), the validity of the alleged divorce, and her status as an aggrieved and necessary party.

She also filed MA No. 4045/2026 seeking condonation of 211 days’ delay, stating that she learnt of the Tribunal’s order only on 5 June 2026 and filed the review promptly thereafter.

The Tribunal condoned the delay.

Whether the 211-day delay in filing the Review Application should be condoned?

Whether the Review Application disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or any other sufficient reason warranting review of the order dated 6 November 2025?

Whether the Tribunal had failed to consider Rule 25(5)(b), the order dated 29 May 2023, and the departmental proceedings relating to the alleged second marriage and divorce?

Whether Rukhsana Khatoon, although not impleaded in the original OA, was an aggrieved or necessary party entitled to seek review under the principle stated in K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India?

The Tribunal applied Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, holding that review jurisdiction is analogous to that of a civil court and is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, or another sufficient reason analogous to the specified grounds.

Relying on State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Tribunal reiterated that an error requiring a long process of reasoning is not an error apparent; review cannot correct an erroneous decision in the guise of appellate reconsideration; and mere discovery of new material is insufficient unless it was unavailable despite due diligence.

The Tribunal also considered K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3277, which recognises that an aggrieved non-party may challenge a decision affecting their rights, but does not enlarge the substantive grounds available in review.

The decision in P. Narayana & Ors. v. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Guntakal & Ors. was relied upon in the original OA concerning the limits on appellate interference with disciplinary exoneration.

The Tribunal first accepted the explanation that Rukhsana Khatoon became aware of the order only on 5 June 2026 and consequently condoned the 211-day delay.

On merits, it held that the original order had already considered the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer’s findings, and the disciplinary authority’s order dated 29 May 2023.

The objections regarding Rule 25(5)(b), the alleged absence of a valid divorce, and the correctness of the departmental findings required reconsideration and re-appreciation of the facts and law, rather than correction of a self-evident error.

Further, Rukhsana’s role as the complainant did not make her a necessary party because the OA challenged departmental orders concerning Rais Ali, and the relief sought was directed against the Railway authorities.

Her possible status as an aggrieved non-party under K. Ajit Babu did not permit her to use review proceedings as an appellate rehearing.

Accordingly, none of the recognised grounds under Section 22(3)(f) and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC was established.

However, it held that the Review Application did not establish any error apparent on the face of the record, new and important matter or evidence unavailable despite due diligence, or any other sufficient reason.

Rukhsana Khatoon’s non-impleadment in the OA and her status as the complainant did not make her a necessary party or justify review.

The Review Application was therefore dismissed in circulation as devoid of merit.

The Registry was directed to assign an appropriate number to the Review Application.