Back
2014 Supreme(Megh) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
Uma Nath Singh, T. Nandakumar Singh, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Binay Chetri - Respondent
Review Petition No. 8 of 2014
Decided on : 02-12-2014
The judgment emphasized the finality of court decisions and the limited scope for review, highlighting the principles of natural justice and the reluctance to entertain review petitions as a routine procedure.
Headnote:
Review Petition - Promotion Dispute - [Section 11 of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, Section 3 of Central Reserve Police Force (India) Act, 1949] - The court reviewed a promotion dispute involving the Central Reserve Police Force. The judgment discussed the promotions of the officers involved and the imposition of penalties, highlighting the principles of natural justice and the finality of court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, Shri. Binay Chetri, was appointed as Assistant Commandant in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and was ordered to move to Department 53 Tikrikilla. Alleged irregularities in vehicle repairing work led to a court of enquiry and subsequent penalties imposed on the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's promotion to the rank of Deputy Commandant was not given effect due to the penalty imposed. The court also noted that other officers facing similar charges had been promoted, leading to a finding of discrimination.
Issues: The issues involved the promotion of the respondent and the imposition of penalties in the context of alleged irregularities in vehicle repairing work.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the finality of court decisions, highlighting that review petitions are not to be taken as a routine course and that review does not lie even on a wrong decision.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed, and a cost of Rs. 2000/- was imposed on the review petitioners for abusing the process of law.
JUDGMENT :
T. Nandakumar Singh, J.
1. Heard Mr. R. Deb Nath, learned CGC appearing for the review petitioners/respondents in WP(C)(SH) No. 288/2008/appellants in Writ Appeal No. (SH) 29/2011.
2. By this review petition, the review petitioners/respondents in WP(C) (SH) No. 288/2008/appellants in Writ Appeal No. (SH) 29/2011 are praying for review of the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court, Shillong Bench dated 29.08.2011 passed in WA No. (SH) 29/2011 only on the ground that while examining the records, it was revealed from the records that Shri. K.A. Ningam was promoted from the rank of Assistant Commandant to the rank of Deputy Commandant on 11.12.2003; and subsequently, Shri. K.A. Ningam was promoted from the rank of Deputy Commandant to the rank of Second-in-Command vide Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') dated 15.06.2009 and also that Shri. V.K. Rawat was promoted from the rank of Assistant Commandant to Deputy Commandant on the basis of the DPC held on 07.03.2011 and also that the respondent/writ petitioner was, subsequently, promoted to the rank of Deputy Commandant on 18.02.2009. For deciding this ground for review, it would be pertinent to mention the background fact leading to the filing of the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. (SH) 288/2008 and writ appeal i.e. WA No. (SH) 29/2011. Accordingly, concise fact, sans detailed, is briefly noted.
3. The respondent/writ petitioner Shri. Binay Chetri was appointed as Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) in the year 1999 and in the later part of the year 2003, he was ordered to move to Department 53 Tikrikilla and took over the charge of Quarter Master and Motor Transport Officer. The Commandant 53 Bn., CRPF undertook repairing work of some vehicles at the cost of Rs. 12,900/- and Rs. 8150/-respectively vide sanction order dated 11.10.2003. However, the Deputy Inspector General Police (DIGP) CRPF, having noticed some alleged irregularities in the said repairing work, ordered for holding of a court of enquiry vide office order dated 11.11.2004. One Shri. Ranbir Singh, Additional DIGP/Group Centre CRPF, Guwahati was detailed to preside over the said court of enquiry. The petitioner participated in the said enquiry proceeding and denied the charges leveled against him and his statement of defence was also recorded on 28.03.2005. The said enquiry officer of the said court of enquiry submitted his report to the DIGP, CRPF, Guwahati with a finding that the court of enquiry did not find any financial irregularity. The DIGP, CRPF, Guwahati did not agree with the finding of the court of enquiry that there was no financial irregularity and without citing any reason of his disagreement with the said finding, he (DIGP, CRPF) forwarded the matter to the IGP, CRPF with the recommendation to initiate regular departmental proceeding against the officers allegedly involved in the repairing work of the vehicles with further order for making recovery. The IGP, N.E. Sector CRPF, Shillong issued a communication/order dated 03.09.2005 to the petitioner and others i.e. the petitioner, Shri. K.A. Ningam, Shri. V.K. Rawat and three others to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,069/- each in the Govt. Treasury. For easy reference, the said order dated 03.09.2005 is quoted hereunder:-
"OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NE SECTOR CRPF SHILLONG 793001
No. I-X-53/2005-NES-Estt-3
Dated, the Sept' 2005
OFFICE ORDER
Commandant 53 Bn, CRPF approved to undertake repair work of vehicle Regn No. Regn No. DL-IG-B-2464(26) TATA Truck and DEP-3394(28) TATA Bus of a cost of Rs. 12,900/- and 8,150/- respectively vide sanction order No. L.VIII-3/2003-04-MT-53 dated 11/10/2003. But required repairs of these vehicles were not carried out and irregularities were observed Bills for such irregular repair were preferred to PAO, CRPF, New Delhi for payment to the firm.
2. A Court of Inquiry on the above was therefore conducted to find out the circumstances under whic
