Bombay High Court
Sindhuja Charan Bajpai S/O. Shri. ... vs Ku. Pratibha D/O Janardhan Togattiwar ... on 3 May, 2024
Author: M. S. Jawalkar
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
2024:BHC-NAG:5307-DB
916-wp2844.23.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 2844 OF 2023
Dilip Vithoba Sonpipare
-Vs.-
Ku.Pratibha d/o Janardhan Togattiwar and anr.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3712 OF 2023
Sindhuja Charan Bajpai
-Vs.-
Ku.Pratibha d/o Janardhan Togattiwar and anr.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Abhay Sambre, counsel for the petitionerd.
None for the respondent No.1.
Mr. N.S.Deshpande, DSGI for the respondents-Union.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE &
SMT. M. S. JAWALKAR, JJ.
DATE : 3RD MAY, 2024
1. Heard Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Deshpande, learned DSGI for respondent
No.2. None appears for the respondent No.1, though
served.
2. Since both these petitions involve identical issue,
the same are decided by this common order. The
petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of learned CAT
dated 02/11/2022, in review application No.2008/2018
and 2009/2018, by which the same have been dismissed on
the ground, that no ground for review is made out, as there
is no error apparent on the face of the record, within the
meaning of the expression.
KHUNTE
916-wp2844.23.odt
3. It is contented by Mr. Sambre, learned counsel for
the petitioners, that in Transfer Application No.2002/2010,
decided on 17/10/2024, the respondent No.1 was directed
to offer appointment by creating a supernumerary post, if it
was found that she was actually in the select panel for the
selection held on 08/05/2001 and 09/05/2001 (Pg.58).
He submits, that the petitioners herein were not parties to
TA No.2002/2010.
4. The respondent No.1 thereafter filed Original
Application No.84/2016, claiming appointment from 2002
by creation of a supernumerary post. In this OA also, the
petitioners herein were not parties. The learned CAT while
deciding OA No.84/2016 on 22/09/2017 had issued
omnibus direction in para-14 (Pg.72), whereby it was
directed, that each of the incumbent on the post of General
Manager, Ordnance Factory Chanda, who held the post
from 17/10/2014 till 25/09/2015 was to pay a penalty of
Rs.1,00,000/-. By a direction contained in para-15,
disciplinary enquiry was directed to be initiated by the
respondent No.1 against all the officers and staff including
the Selection Committee Members responsible for the delay
in appointment of the respondent No.1 from the year 2000.
5. This order was challenged by the present
petitioners, by filing review application before the learned
CAT, which has been dismissed as indicated above. It is
therefore contended, that when the petitioners were not
parties either to TA No.2002/2010 or for that matter to OA
No.84/2016, the aforesaid directions could not have been
KHUNTE
916-wp2844.23.odt
passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing. It
is contended that this would be the sufficient ground of
review, as the petitioners have been condemned unheard.
6. A perusal of the impugned order dated 02/11/2022
indicates, that reasonings for rejection of the review, which
flow from para-11 onwards, do not indicate consideration
of this plea of the petitioners being not parties to the OA
No.84/2016. An error apparent on the face of the record, as
rightly indicated, would be something, which would be
reflected form the face of the record and for which, there
needs no requirement to look into any document or
anything else, except for the judgment and order sought to
be reviewed. The order in OA No.84/2016 would indicate,
that the petitioners herein were not parties thereto in spite
of which, they have suffered the penalty, which has been
imposed upon them in para-14 thereof and the direction as
contained in para-15. This would, in our considered
opinion, be sufficient to indicate an error apparent on the
face of the record, as it is the settled legal principle, that no
person can be condemned unheard. We therefore, set
aside the impugned order dated 02/11/2022 and remand
the matter back to the CAT for hearing the review
application. The petition is accordingly allowed in the
above terms. No costs.
(SMT.M.S.JAWALKAR,J) (AVINASH G.GHAROTE,J)
Signed by: Mr. G.S. Khunte
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 04/05/2024 17:01:33
KHUNTE
