Union Of India Through Secy. ... vs Ram Milan & Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 8848 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 1
 

 
Case :- SERVICE BENCH No. - 201 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Union Of India Through Secy. Deptt. Of Posts New Delhi & 3 O
 
Respondent :- Ram Milan & Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Surya Bhan Pandey,Raj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Omendra Pratap Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi,J.

Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.

Order on C.M. Application No.1058 of 2018-Application for condonation of delay in filing review application:-

Heard Mr. S.B. Pandey, learned Senior Advocate/Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the appellants as well as Mr. Omendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

This review application has been filed with a reported delay of three months and one day.

The cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of review application is sufficient.

Accordingly, delay application is allowed. Delay in filing review application is hereby condoned.

Order on Review Application (C.M. Application No.1059 of 2018):-

Heard.

This review application arises out of an order dated 31.08.2017, passed in Writ Petition No.201 (SB) of 2015; Union of India and others Vs. Ram Milan and another, whereby the writ petition preferred by the review-applicants has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for review-applicants tries to submit that Smt. Rukhsana had appeared in the preliminary enquiry and given her statement. The preliminary enquiry report was relied in the disciplinary proceedings and as such it is wrong to say that no independent witness was examined.

We have heard learned counsel for parties' and gone through the records.

In fact Smt. Rukhsana did not turned up in the disciplinary proceedings and did not depose before the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. Unless and until Smt. Rukhsana had appeared in the disciplinary proceedings and proved her statement given in the preliminary enquiry it cannot be said that the independent witness was examined.

We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded in this regard by the Court. Moreover, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases reported in (1995) 1 S.C.C. 170, Meera Bhanja (Smt.) vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.) and (1997) 8 S.C.C. 715, Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others has held that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is very limited and this jurisdiction can be invoked only, if there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, there is no error apparent on the face of record of the judgment.

The review application is accordingly dismissed..

.

(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.) (Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

Ram.