Review jurisdiction corrects patent errors; it cannot be used to rehear and correct an erroneous decision.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the applicant for alleged omissions and commissions in the discharge of his official duties.

During the inquiry, the applicant admitted the allegations.

The proceedings continued in accordance with the applicable rules, including consultation with and advice from the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

After punishment was imposed and his departmental remedies failed, the applicant filed O.A. No. 78/2016, challenging the disciplinary proceedings, inter alia, on the ground that the UPSC report had not been supplied to him before imposition of punishment.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application by a reasoned order dated 21 November 2019.

The applicant thereafter filed the present Review Application under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, seeking review of that order.

The respondents opposed the maintainability of the Review Application.

1. Whether the non-supply of the UPSC report constituted a violation of the principles of natural justice.

2. Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in S.K. Kapoor could be treated as ineffective until its circulation by the Department of Personnel and Training on 6 January 2014.

3. Whether the inquiry report was legally valid in the absence of an assessment of evidence by the Inquiry Officer as allegedly required under Rule 14(23)(i)(c) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

4. Whether the applicant had been afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself.

5. Whether the applicant established any permissible ground for review, such as discovery of new evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another analogous ground.

The Tribunal exercised its review jurisdiction under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Rule 17 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987, and applied the principles embodied in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning review of judgments.

Review is limited to correcting a patent or manifest error, a grave error arising from judicial fallibility, discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, or an analogous ground; it is not an appellate rehearing or an opportunity to substitute one possible view for another.

The Tribunal relied on Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909; Sow. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500; A.T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047; Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674; and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, particularly the rule that an error requiring reasoning to discover is not an “error apparent on the face of the record” and that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

The Tribunal found that the original order had considered the applicant’s submissions, including the objection concerning the UPSC report and the decision relied upon by him.

The Original Application had already been dismissed after the Tribunal noted that the applicant had produced no material contradicting the UPSC’s observations and that the misconduct could not be regarded as insignificant or the punishment as disproportionate.

The grounds raised in review sought reconsideration of issues already adjudicated rather than correction of any patent error, discovery of new evidence, or prevention of a miscarriage of justice.

Applying the restricted scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Tribunal held that rehearing and correcting an allegedly erroneous decision was impermissible in review proceedings.

The Review Application was therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs.