The scope of review is limited to correcting apparent errors; no new arguments or evidence can justify altering the original decision.

Per Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:-

The instant Review Application has been filed praying for recalling and reviewing the Order dated 27.05.2025 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 350/01783/2015 (Ashis Chandra Das v. S.E. Railway) and to restore the Original Application in its original position.

2. The applicant in the Original Application had approached this Tribunal being aggrieved with the action of the Revisionary Authority in disagreeing with the Order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 07.04.2015 and in issuing him with a show cause notice, directing him to explain why his punishment should not be enhanced to that of ‘Compulsory Retirement’ since as per the opinion of the said Authority, the applicant has committed serious nature of offences and had repeated commencement of misdemeanor.

3. This Tribunal while dealing with the issue has recorded that since all the issues in hand has already been dealt with in earlier round of litigation, there is little scope of interfering with the disciplinary proceedings unless and until there is some deviation from the Rules or if the Order has been passed by an incompetent authority as observed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in numerous occasion.

4. At present, the applicant has approached this Tribunal by filing the Review Application mainly on the ground that this Tribunal while passing the final Order in the Original Application has failed to consider the amendment application wherein in he has challenged the Order dated 15.05.2017 passed by the Revising Authority. This M.A. No. 244 of 2021, filed for amendment, was disposed of vide Order dated 25.04.2025. The applicant contends that vide Order dated 15.05.2017, the Revisionary authority has enhanced the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement if 2/3rd pension and gratuity was admissible to him under Rule 64 of RS (Pension) Rules, 1993 subject to fulfillment of certain terms and conditions as laid down therein, which according to him is impermissible under law.

5. We have perused the materials available on record.

6. It is noted that as per the applicant, this Tribunal has failed to consider the Amendment Application. While we find that the grievance of the applicant has already been taken care of in the O.A. However, since there was little scope of interfering with the disciplinary proceedings this Tribunal refrained from passing any order.

7. It is also noted that though M.A. No. 244/2021 filed for making certain amendments in the O.A., which was disposed of vide Order dated 25.04.2025, however the prayer portion of the O.A. has not been amended in terms of the prayer sought for in the M.A. Further, it is noted that even though the prayer sought for has been taken into consideration, while passing the final Order in O.A. No. 1783/2015. Thus, the applicant has not made out a case by which it can be said that there is apparent error on the face of the record.

8. It is well settled law that the scope of review is limited to correcting self-evident errors.

9. As per several pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, viz. Parsion Devi & Others Vs. Sumitri Devi & Others [1997(8) SCC 715] and State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Kumar Sengupta [2008(8) SCC 612], the scope of review is very limited, mainly to correcting self-evident errors.

10. In the case of Parsion Devi (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"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, R