Review jurisdiction limited to errors apparent on face of record, not re-appreciation of evidence or appeal.

The applicant, Dr. Nazrul Islam, filed R.A. 350/05/2026, seeking a review of the Tribunal's previous order in O.A. 350/1514/2022.

In the original OA, the applicant had challenged an order imposing a pension-cut, arguing denial of natural justice due to non-supply of documents and an ex parte inquiry.

The Tribunal, in its order dated 12.01.2026, had quashed and set aside the penalty order and subsequent rejection orders, directing the respondents to pay full pension, finding that the ex parte inquiry resulted in a denial of natural justice and suffered from legal infirmities.

The applicant now seeks a review based on three alleged errors apparent on the face of the record concerning the supply of documents, participation in the inquiry, and the classification of misconduct.

1. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record regarding the non-supply of listed documents to the applicant, leading to a denial of natural justice

2. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in stating that the applicant did not participate in the ex parte inquiry

3. Whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record concerning the nature of the alleged misconduct and its continuation after retirement

4. Whether the present Review Application meets the limited scope for review as defined by Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and precedents set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court

The Tribunal applied Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which governs applications for review of judgment.

It primarily relied on the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in *State of West Bengal & others v. Kamal Sengupta and another* (2008) 8 SCC 612, which clarifies that the power of review by a Tribunal is akin to that of a Civil Court, allowing review only on grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not for correcting erroneous decisions in the guise of review, or on the basis of subsequent events or re-appreciation of evidence.

The Tribunal also referred to *Union of India v/s Tarit Ranjan Das* 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 and *Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Ors.* (2013), emphasizing that review scope is limited, not an appeal, and does not permit re-hearing or a change of opinion on merits.

The Tribunal's analysis focused on whether the applicant's grounds for review fell within the narrow ambit of review jurisdiction.

It determined that the points raised by the applicant in the Review Application were already part of his original OA and submissions during the initial hearing.

The court had already engaged in an "elaborate discussion" of these grounds and rule provisions before reaching its decision in the OA.

The Tribunal underscored that a review is not an appeal and cannot serve as an opportunity to re-hear the matter or challenge a judgment by asserting an alternative view.

Crucially, the court found no "error apparent on the face of the record" as required for a review, asserting that any alleged error would necessitate a "process of reasoning" rather than being self-evident.

The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not brought forth any new facts warranting a review of the earlier order.

The Tribunal concluded that the arguments advanced in the review application are not matters for review and found no merit in the applicant's submission.

No costs were awarded.