ORDER
M.A. Khan, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The applicant is seeking review of the order of this Tribunal dated 26.7.2005 passed in OA No. 2320/2004 on variety of grounds, which have been pleaded in para 5 of the application. These grounds are that that Tribunal had erred in holding in para 12 that because the police raiding party had apprehended the applicant along with others in a bank dacoity and the applicant also accepted that he was involved in 5 criminal cases, the disciplinary authority justifiably concluded that he was a person of desperate and dangerous character and may have several associates with similar dangerous criminal propensity; the Tribunal erred in holding that in OA 1515/2001 it was decided that the Tribunal would not sit in judgment over the reason like a court of appeal; the Tribunal also erred in holding that the applicant has been found acting in association with other desperate characters and appreciation that the witness would not come forward to depose against him was correct; the Tribunal had not given reason why it has accepted the conclusion of the department since in the criminal cases the witnesses were same most of whom were police personnel, therefore, the finding that the witnesses would be afraid of deposing against the applicant was incorrect; the Tribunal also did not appreciate that the department had not even appointed an Inquiry Officer or preferred a list of witnesses and that the enquiry proceedings were dispensed with only out of sheer laziness; the Tribunal also did not given reason for disagreeing with the earlier judgments not taking into account the circular dated 29th December, 1993 issued by the Department of Police and; that even the notices were not issued to the witnesses for appearance on the presumption that they would not come forward to depose against the applicant was not correct etc. etc.
2. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the applicant referring to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the order under review has stated that the Tribunal relied upon a judgment of the Full Bench in OA No. 1515/2001 but has not correctly applied the ratio of the law laid down and this is a sufficient ground for recalling the order and re-hearing the OA.
3. An order of this Tribunal can be reviewed on the same principle on which a review under order is made by a civil court. The principles are embodied in Order 1 Rule 47 CPC. A party aggrieved by a decree or a decision of the court may apply for a review in case (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after due diligence was not even within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or order was made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error on the face of the record; and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. In the instant case it is argued that there is mistake apparent on the face of the record as the Tribunal has applied the ratio of the Full Bench decision of the Tribunal wrongly, therefore, it is a fit case for recalling the order and hearing the OA on merit afresh.
4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das 2004 SCC (L&S) 160 observed as under:
13. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh order and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing an original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court.
5. As such, the scope of the review, is very limited. The order of the Tribunal can be reviewed only in three situations, which have been enumerated above. The question is whether there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record? The learned Counsel has referred to para 12 and 13 of the order. For appreciating his argument, we may reproduce these paras:
12. Whereas in the present case, the facts are different. According to the respondents it is not practical to hold the enquiry because, he is highly desperate and a dangerous type of person who may be having several associates with similar dangerous criminal propensity. ‘A police raiding party apprehended the applicant along with others in an attempted dacoity of the Delhi State Cooperative Bank, Shahbad, Daultapur. The applicant has accepted that there are five criminal cases registered against him in Haryana and in Uttar Pradesh. In these facts of the case, the disciplinary authority has recorded that the applicant is a desperate and dangerous person who may be having several associates with similar dangerous criminal propensity.
13. The Full Benchs judgment of the Tribunal in OA 1515/2001 has held that it is not for the Tribunal to sit in judgment over the reasons like a court of first appeal in order to decide whether or not the reasons are germane to Clause (b) of the second proviso of an analogous service rule. The court must put itself in the place of the disciplinary authority and consider what in the then prevailing situation a reasonable man acting in a reasonable manner would have done. In the present case, the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have recorded that the applicant has been found acting in association with other desperate characters and they have apprehension that no witnesses would not come forward under the circumstances. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Tulsiram Patel (Supra) have given an example of what would constitute as reasonably not possible to hold an enquiry. They have observed that , In this connection, we must bear in mind that numbers coerce and terrify while an individual may not. Under these circumstances, the preponderance of probability would support the conclusions of the respondents that the applicant may be having associates, which makes certain that that witness would not be in a position to muster enough courage to depose against the appellant during DE proceedings due to fear of severe reprisal at his hands.
6. These paragraphs show that the Tribunals order is not solely based on the appreciation of the ratio of Full Bench decision of this Tribunal in OA 1515/2001. It is not a case where the Tribunal after narrating the facts of the case has held that the fact was identical to the facts as in OA 1515/2001 and the ratio of the judgment of the Tribunal in that case would squarely cover the question involved in the present case and had decided the OA accordingly. The Tribunal has considered the Full Bench judgment rendered in OA 15151/2001 and ahs also taken into account other facts and circumstances including the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court before recording its finding. Therefore, there is not grain of truth in the contention that there is mistake apparent on the face of the record. It is well settled if an elaborate process of reasoning was necessary to arrive at a conclusion that there was error apparent on the face of record, it would not be an error apparent on the face of record justifying review of its own order by the Tribunal. The error apparent on the face of the record has to be such, as can be seen by any one, who reads it and there is obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by long debatable process of reasoning. The Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment. The reading of paras 12 and 13 of the order which have been reproduced above would show that it cannot be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record even if, assuming though not deciding, that the Tribunal has wrongly applied the law laid down in the judgment of the Full Bench in OA 1515/2001 to support its conclusion because that decision is not the sole ground for recording the finding of the Tribunal.
7. Accordingly, the Review Application is not tenable and it is dismissed. No costs.