Manik Rao vs Union Of India & Ors
2011 Latest Caselaw 1828 Del

*       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

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