Review jurisdiction is limited to identifying manifest errors on the face of the record; rearguing previously settled issues is not permissible.

JUDGEMENT :

JYOTI SINGH, J.

REVIEW PET. 80/2022, CM APPLs. 19486/2022, 1219/2025, 54267/2025 & 54272/2025

1. This review petition is filed by the Petitioner seeking review and recall of judgment dated 07.03.2022.

2. To the extent necessary, the factual matrix is that Petitioner joined IAS in 1987 and was allocated the West Bengal Cadre. Petitioner superannuated on 31.05.2021, while working as Chief Secretary of the State of West Bengal. On 16.06.2021, a major penalty chargesheet was issued to the Petitioner by the Respondents under Rule 8 of the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 read with Rule 6 of All India Services (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958. Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the departmental enquiry and preliminary hearing was scheduled for 18.10.2021.

3. On receiving the hearing notice, Petitioner filed an application under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (‘1985 Act’) being O.A. No. 1619/2021, challenging the chargesheet and consequential orders of appointing the Enquiry Officer etc., before the Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal. Respondents filed a Transfer Petition before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal under Section 25 of 1985 Act, seeking transfer of the O.A. to the Principal Bench. By order dated 22.10.2021, Tribunal allowed the Transfer Petition and directed listing of O.A. No. 1619/2021 for admission on 27.10.2021.

4. This order was challenged by the Petitioner before the Calcutta High Court in W.P.C.T. No. 78/2021. On 27.10.2021, Tribunal issued notice in the O.A., which was accepted by the Respondents and matter was adjourned to 12.11.2021. By judgment dated 29.10.2021, Calcutta High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the Petitioner and set aside the order of the Tribunal, transferring the O.A. Respondents herein challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) 18338/2021, primarily on the ground that Calcutta High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to the order passed by the Principal Bench at New Delhi. The SLP was allowed on 06.01.2022 and the judgment of Calcutta High Court was set aside on lack of territorial jurisdiction, with liberty to the Petitioner to assail the order of the Tribunal before the jurisdictional High Court and in this backdrop, Petitioner filed the writ petition in this Court, from which the present review petition emanates.

5. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 07.03.2022, finding no infirmity in the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 passed by the Tribunal transferring the O.A. from Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal. It was held that the impugned order was passed within the four corners of Section 25 of 1985 Act, which confers power on the Chairman of the Tribunal to transfer cases from one Bench to another. Court also found that due notice was given to the Petitioner and counsels representing him were duly heard before the transfer order was passed. Insofar as the arguments on merits of the chargesheet were concerned, Court did not adjudicate the issues as this was beyond the scope of the writ petition, which was concerned with a challenge to the transfer order. Petitioner now seeks review/recall of judgment dated 07.03.2022.

6. Mr. A.K. Behera, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the judgment dated 07.03.2022 deserves to be reviewed on multiple grounds. It was urged that Petitioner was deprived of an effective opportunity of hearing as no pass over was granted to the junior counsel representing the Petitioner, which he sought since the Senior Advocates engaged by t