Rajasthan High Court

Ram Narain S/O Shri (Late) Badlu ... vs Union Of India ... on 20 September, 2023

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar

[2023:RJ-JP:24063-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.521/2013

Ram Narain S/o Shri (Late) Badlu Ram, Aged About 54 Years,
Earlier Superintendent, Customs And Central Excise Jaipur-II
NCR Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur R/o H.No. 940
Sector 15, Part-II, Gurugram (Haryana) 122001
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus


 1. Union Of India, Through The Chairman, Central Board Of
 Excise And Customs, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of
 Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 110001.
 2. Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner-I, New Central
 Revenue Building, Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
 302001
 3. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur
 through its Registrar, 22 Godown, Jaipur



                                 Connected With
                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5065/2021
Ram Narain S/o Shri (Late) Badlu Ram, Aged About 62 Years,
Earlier Superintendent, Customs And Central Excise Jaipur-Ii Ncr
Building Statue Circle, C-Scheme, Jaipur R/o H.no. 940 Sector
15, Part-Ii, Gurugram (Haryana) 122001
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1.    Union Of India, Through The Chairman, Central Board Of
      Excise And Customs, Ministry Of Finance, Department Of
      Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 110001.
2.    Commissioner, Central Excise Commissioner-I, New Central
      Revenue       Building,        Statue       Circle,       C-Scheme,     Jaipur
      (Rajasthan) 302001
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Dr. Saugath Roy, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kinshuk Jain, Advocate with Mr. Sourabh Jain, Advocate

[2023:RJ-JP:24063-DB] (2 of 6) [CW-521/2013]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Order

20/09/2023

This order shall govern the disposal of the aforesaid two

cases.

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.521/2013 under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India is preferred against order dated 08.05.2012

by which Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed

as also order dated 20.07.2012 by which the review petition was

also dismissed.

The other petition i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5065/2021

arises out of an order dated 21.09.2020 by which an application

titled "Review Application No.291/07/2018", seeking recall of an

earlier order passed in review on 20.07.2012 was also dismissed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur

(hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal").

While the issue involved for consideration is short, in order to

put record straight, it is quint-essential for us to state bare

minimum facts, relevant for disposal of these cases.

The petitioner, while in service, was subjected to disciplinary

action which culminated in issuance of an order on 08.05.2012

imposing minor penalty of stoppage of two increments without

cumulative effect. The appeal of the petitioner also having been

dismissed by the Departmental Authority, the petitioner

approached the Tribunal by filing an Original Application. The

Tribunal did not find any ground to interfere with the order of

[2023:RJ-JP:24063-DB] (3 of 6) [CW-521/2013]

penalty and therefore, the Original Application was dismissed on

08.05.2012.

After dismissal of the Original Application, as claimed by the

petitioner, he came to know about the result of disciplinary action

taken against his two subordinates namely Sudhir Tiwari and

Dileep Poonia. One of the subordinate Inspector Dileep Poonia

approached the Tribunal and he was granted relief. The other

person Sudhir Tiwari preferred a revision against the order of

penalty which culminated into an order in his favour. Based on

these two aspects, the petitioner filed a review petition seeking

recall of order dated 08.05.2012. That review petition was also

dismissed by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the review

petition having been filed beyond the period of limitation, was not

maintainable.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.521/2013, challenging both the orders i.e. 08.05.2012 and

20.07.2012. Vide order dated 17.05.2018, the petition was

disposed off in view of the statement made by the counsel for the

petitioner that he intends to approach the Tribunal by way of

review petition. This Court observed that the Tribunal while

considering the review petition will take into consideration the fact

of similarly situated persons being exonerated.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition registered as Review

Application No.291/07/2018 along with application for condonation

of delay. The application for condonation of delay was dismissed

as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh one. The fresh application

was filed seeking condonation of delay.

[2023:RJ-JP:24063-DB] (4 of 6) [CW-521/2013]

The Tribunal held that the second review petition was not

maintainable. Thereafter, aggrieved by the said order, D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.5065/2021 has been filed.

The genesis of the dispute giving rise to these two petitions

is that against the order of imposition of penalty, Original

Application filed before the Tribunal was dismissed on 08.05.2012

and review petition was also dismissed on 20.07.2012. The second

round of litigation under liberty in view of order dated 17.05.2018

of this Court again resulted in dismissal of application which

according to the applicant was an application for recall of the

order dated 20.07.2012.

The Tribunal by its subsequent order dated 21.09.2020,

which is in assail in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5065/2021 proceeds

on the premise that there cannot be a second review of a review

order. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of Lok Prahari Versus Election Commission of

India & Others; Interlocutory Application

Nos.156831/2019 and 167016/2019 in Review Petition

(Civil) No.3947/2018, wherein it has been observed that relief

claimed in the said application was unsustainable as there can be

no review of an order passed in review petition. It was further

observed that the fact that the petitioner was not heard before the

order was passed in review petition could not be made a basis to

file an application for recall.

In our considered opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal

while rejecting the second application for recall of a review order,

does not warrant any interference. The principles of law which

have been applied by the Tribunal to reject the application are

[2023:RJ-JP:24063-DB] (5 of 6) [CW-521/2013]

based on the verdict of the Supreme Court. Therefore, D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.5065/2021 has no merit and is dismissed.

We find that after recall application was dismissed, the

earlier writ petition filed i.e. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.521/2013

was revived on the prayer of the petitioner. The petitioner's case

as reflected from the records and the prayer is essentially based

on disclosure of certain facts relating to different treatment meted

out to two subordinates, who were also roped in respect of those

very incidents for which disciplinary inquiry was opened against

the petitioner and penalty was imposed.

Review petition was rejected by the Tribunal vide its order

dated 20.07.2012 relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court

in the case of K. Ajit Babu Versus Union of India; 1998 (1)

SLJ 85.

The findings recorded by the Tribunal in this regard are as

below:-

"4. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 4 of the judgment in the case of K.Ajit Babu Vs. Union of India, reported in 1998 (1) SLJ 85 observed as under:-

"........Besides that, the right of review is available if such application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality. If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given cannot monitor the case of all times to come. Public Policy demands that there should be end to law suits and if the view of the Tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never came to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code

[2023:RJ-JP:24063-DB] (6 of 6) [CW-521/2013]

of Civil Procedure, if filed within the period of limitation."

Apparently, the Tribunal held that the review petition is not

maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not satisfy

us as to how this order of Tribunal suffers from an error of

jurisdiction and patent illegality so as to warrant interference by

this Court.

Though the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity

to the order passed by the Tribunal on 08.05.2012, the grounds

which have been raised in the petition are only based on

discriminatory treatment which was sought to be raised by filing

review petition. As review petition was not maintainable, the

ground of discrimination could not be examined.