Shri Ashok Kumar Monga vs Uco Bank And Ors.
2003 Latest Caselaw 1206 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

1. This Review Petition is directed towards the Order dated May 11, 2001 and has been filed on 12th December, 2001, after approaching the Division Bench in LPA No.281/2001 which was dismissed as withdrawn on October 10, 2001.

2. A view once taken is not reviewable unless some mistake or error has been committed which is plainly and palpably apparent on the face of the record. An error can appropriately and properly be set aside by the Appellate Court, if, in the latter's wisdom, the exposition of law or treatment of facts is incorrect.

3. The observations in (Raja) Indrajit Pratap Bahadur Sahi vs. Amar Singh and Ors AIR 1923 PC 128, which have stood the test of eighty long years, apply in full force. It was observed that where an appeal has been preferred a review is out of question. In Dev Krishna and Anr. v. Dhani Ram Saligram, , a Division Bench of that Court had observed that a Court has jurisdiction to decide wrongly and a review against such a decision is not in order. Once arguments have been addressed on a particular issue and a decision has been rendered, recourse to a Review is wholly unjustified. In Smt. Meer Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, , it has been observed by the Apex Court that the Review Court should not act as Appellate Court and the error apparent on the face of the record contemplates that genre of errors which strikes one on a mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Similar views have been expressed in Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors., . It was held that a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one which is self-evident and does not require a process of reasoning; distinct from an erroneous decision. A rehearing in the matter for detecting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting it does not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction.

4. There is infinite intrinsic wisdom in the prevailing provisions of the law pertaining to the maintainability of a Review even from the standpoint of jural time management. The attention and time of the Appellate Court would be dissipated if after hearing arguments the matter is remanded for fresh decision. The doctrine of merger of jurisdictions enables and expects the First Appellate Court to decide all matters which naturally and logically arise in the lis.

5. The provisions pertaining to Review also specify that a Review is maintainable and permissible even in respect of appealable orders provided no appeal has been filed. If parties are permitted to press applications of the present nature, it would amount to forum shopping, which is abhorrent as far as procedural law is concerned.

6. The main thrust of the contention of learned counsel for the UCO Bank is that the attention was not drawn by counsel for the Bank to the Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976. These Regulations were on the record of the Court when the Order dated 11.5.2001 was passed Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure enables the filing of the Review in circumstances where an Order which could have been appealed against, but has not been so done. This is not the case before me. The Order is an Appealable Order, and as mentioned above, the Appeal was filed. Added to these requirements, the Review Application must be predicated on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, could not be produced, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for " any other sufficient reason", which phrase must be construed ejusdem generis.

7. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that while passing the Order dated 11.5.2001, the Conduct and Discipline and Appeal Regulations, 1976 had not been given due consideration. Almost thirty month or two and a half years have elapsed and it would be sanguine to expect that a Judge would remember every argument addressed before him so much earlier in time. However, in the present case, there is a reference to Rules of J.R.E.C. and Railway Board circulars in Umesh Chandra Misra Versus Union of India and Others, 1993 Supp (2) SCC 210, which indicates that the Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976, were also within my ken when the Order dated May 11, 2001 were passed. If these provisions were not adverted to by learned Counsel for the UCO Bank, the present Review would not be maintainable. It would be recalled that the dismissal order was set aside by my Learned Brother A.K.Sikri, J. on August 31, 1999 with the result that Shri A.K.Monga was held to be entitled to Restatement in service with consequential benefits; however, the arrears of salary and admissible allowances were limited to 50%. This Order was appealed in LPA No.411/1999 on 16.11.1999. In the subsequent Review Application, the UCO Bank was permitted to conduct a fresh domestic employee. It is not disputed that Shri A.K.Monga has remained suspended for almost 18 years despite succeeding in his litigation. In Abdul Shakur and others Versus Barkat Ali and another, 2000 AIHC 1913, this Court declined to condone delay on the grounds that the Petitioner had been pursuing an appeal which was without jurisdiction. This reasoning would apply, a fortiori with compelling force where a maintainable Appeal has been dismissed and a Review has been filed thereafter.

8. No grounds justifying a review of the Order dated 11.5.2001 has been made. Filing of the Letters Patent Appeal and its subsequent dismissal as withdrawn is also no ground for condoning delay. The applications are wholly without merit and are dismissed.