* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.13522/2005
% Date of Decision: 29.03.2011
MANIK RAO ..... Petitioner
Through : None.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .... Respondent
Through : Mr. Baldev Malik, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in Digest? No
ANIL KUMAR, J.
The petitioner had challenged the penalty of reduction to the lower time scale by two steps which had been imposed upon him for a period of four years from retrospective effect w.e.f. 06.08.1992 i.e. the day when he was placed under suspension, by filing O.A. No.2001/2000 titled as Manik Rao v. Union of India and others which was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 10.05.2001.
Against the order of the Tribunal, a writ petition was filed by the petitioner being CWP no. 2222/2002 titled as Manik Rao v. Union of India which was also dismissed with the observation that the questions WP(C) 13522/2005 Page 1 of 2 which had been raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal which had not been gone into, the remedy of the petitioner for this would be to file an appropriate application for review before the Tribunal.
Taking clue from the dismissal order dated 09.04.2002 passed by the High Court, a review application being R.A. No.164/2002 in O.A. No.2001/2000 was filed by the petitioner which was also dismissed by order dated 08.07.2003.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.07.2003 dismissing the review application in the present writ petition. While dismissing the review application, the Tribunal had held that it cannot re-appreciate the evidence and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that it was on the basis of no evidence. The Tribunal had also held that it in fact dismissed the application while appreciating the evidence. But the same plea cannot be entertained by the Tribunal again in the review petition.
No one is present on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default of appearance of petitioner and his counsel.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
VEENA BIRBAL, J.
MARCH 29, 2011 srb WP(C) 13522/2005 Page 2 of 2