Delhi High Court
Kishan Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Ors. on 18 May, 2012
Author: Anil Kumar
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 18 .05.2012
+ RA No.198/2012 in WP(C) No.11925/2009
Kishan Pal Singh ... Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Petitioner in person.
For Respondent : Mr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. R. MIDHA
ANIL KUMAR, J.
*
1. The petitioner has sought review of order dated 30th January,
2012 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.11925/2009 dismissing the writ
petition of the petitioner challenging the charge sheet dated 11th March,
2006, enquiry report, order dated 9th September, 2006, order dated
6/7th December, 2006, show cause notice dated 6th March, 2007, order
dated 29th May, 2007 and order dated 5th November, 2007 passed by
the respondents. The petitioner had also prayed for issuance of a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to reinstate him in
service with all the consequential benefits of pay, arrears of pay-salary
and seniority etc. and to treat his suspension period from 9th
September, 2006 till the date of reinstatement as period spent on duty
for all intents and purposes. The writ petition was dismissed and all the
reliefs claimed by the petitioner were declined
2. The petitioner/applicant has sought the review of order dated
30th January, 2012 dismissing his writ petition on the ground that the
material facts have been ignored by the respondents while passing the
order of his dismissal and the punishment awarded to the petitioner is
disproportionate. According to him, the disproportionate punishment
imposed on the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the
respondents had reduced the punishment from removal from service to
the reduction of pay by three stages for a period of two years with a
further direction that during that period of deduction, the petitioner
shall not earn the increments of pay and on expiry of the said period,
reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay
by the appellate authority which was enhanced to dismissal by the
higher authorities. According to the petitioner, the IG/APS, CISF has
wrongly used the power of review and enhanced the punishment in an
illegal, arbitrary and unjust manner.
3. The petitioner has also sought review of order dated 30th January,
2012 on the ground that there was no evidence against him before the
Enquiry Officer as none of the witnesses produced in the enquiry had
seen the petitioner committing the theft, nor the stolen mobile phone
was recovered from him. The petitioner has contended that the best
evidence of CCTV was withheld by the respondents without any cogent
reasons. The petitioner has also contended that it was for the
respondents to prove the charges against him and the petitioner was
not liable to disprove the charges against him.
4. The petitioner reiterated that he was falsely implicated by
Inspector Chandrasenan and Inspector Molfa in connivance with other
persons as they were annoyed with the petitioner on account of his
repeated requests for relieving him. The petitioner asserted that
Inspector Molfa and Inspector Chandrasenan fabricated the evidence
against the petitioner. The allegation is also made by the petitioner that
the evidence was selected by the Enquiry Officer selectively and the case
of the respondents against the petitioner is based on the alleged
confession/admission of the petitioner that he had lifted the mobile
phone in question and concealed it in the rest room, though the
petitioner had been making the submission from the beginning that he
had not made any confession/admission.
5. The petitioner in the application for review has reiterated all the
pleas and contentions which were raised by the petitioner in the writ
petition and which were argued and dealt with by this Court while
dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner by order dated 30th
January, 2012.
6. The petitioner has not disclosed any such plea which was raised
by the petitioner and which was not dealt with or considered by this
Court while dismissing his writ petition by order dated 30th January,
2012 whose review is sought by the petitioner in order to re-argue the
whole matter. The petitioner has not shown any patent error or any
such error apparent on the face of the record except reiterating the
pleas and contentions which were raised in the writ petition.
7. The petitioner who has appeared in person has not been able to
refute that the power of review is not an absolute power and is
circumscribed by the restriction indicated in the Order 47 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. Such power can be exercised on the application of a
person, on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of
record or for any other sufficient reason or in case of discovery of new
and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence,
was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced
by him at the time when the order was made. This is not disputed that
the petitioner/applicant has not relied on discovery of new or important
matter of evidence which had not been produced by him earlier or
which was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him or
was not considered by the Court when the order dated 30th January,
2012 was passed.
8. This is no more res-integra that review cannot be sought merely
for fresh hearing or argument or correction of an erroneous view taken
earlier. The power of review can be exercised only for correction of a
patent error of law or fact which are apparently incorrect without any
elaborated argument being noted for establishing it.
9. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR
1979 SC 1047 the Supreme Court held that:-
"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution
to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of
review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction
to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and
palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive
limits to be exercise of the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter of evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person
seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the
time when the order was made; it may be exercised where
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is
found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground.
But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merit."
10. It is also well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under Order
47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter-alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which
is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can
hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected.
A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
11. Attempt of the applicant by filing the present applications is only
to re-agitate the issues which were raised in the writ petition and which
had been considered before the order dismissing his writ petition was
passed. No error much less an error apparent on the face of the record
has been pointed out by the petitioner. An error which is not self
evident and has to be inferred by a process of reasoning can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. This principle
was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of Lily Thomas, etc.
etc. v. Union of India and Ors. MANU/SC/0327/2000 with a clear
caution that in exercise of power of review, the Court may correct the
mistake but it is not to substitute its earlier view. The mere possibility
of two views on the subject, is not a ground for review. A review cannot
be sought merely for fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an
erroneous view taken earlier. The power of review can be exercised only
for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stays in the face
without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it.
12. The petitioner/applicant has reiterated the pleas and contentions
which had been canvassed on his behalf by his counsel before the order
dismissing his writ petition was passed. In the circumstances there are
no grounds made out by the petitioner for review of order dated 30th
January, 2012 dismissing his writ petition. The review application is
without any merit and is liable to be dismissed. The review application
is therefore, dismissed.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
J. R. MIDHA, J.
MAY 18, 2012
vk
