Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 12290
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Urmita Datta, Suchitto Kumar Das, JJ
Posts – Appellant
Versus
Pradip Kumar Chakraborty – Respondent
R.A. 350/00034/2025 | O.A. 350/00944/2022 | O.A. 350/1596/2022 | M.A. 350/00865/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Not listed
For the Respondents: Not listed
The Tribunal's review power is limited to correcting self-evident errors; mere dissatisfaction with a decision does not warrant a review.
Headnote:(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Review application to condone delay filed under non-existent rule; allowed in the interest of justice. The applicant contended suspension was arbitrary and unlawful, violating CCS (CCA) Rules. (Paras 1-10)
(B) Review Scope - Limited to correcting self-evident errors; cannot be a disguised appeal. Supreme Court precedents emphasized that errors must be apparent on record. Decision on review rejected, as no grounds were found for reconsideration. (Paras 4-10)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was suspended for misappropriation, argued suspension lacked basis per CCS (CCA) Rules. Found void ab initio; prior suspension orders were quashed.
Findings of Court:
The earlier decision upheld with no apparent errors; the review petition was found to misuse court time.
Issues: Applicability of review powers and the grounds for the applicant’s suspension.
Ratio Decidendi: Review powers are restricted to visible errors; previous points already discussed in detail.
Result: Review Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. review application to condone delay under limitation act. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. limited review powers correcting self-evident errors. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. no evident errors found; review dismissed. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
ORDER
[In Circulation]
Per Urmita Datta (Sen), Judicial Member:-
Miscellaneous Application No. 350/00865/2025 has been filed seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987.
Although the applicant has filed M.A. under Section 5 of the CAT (Procedure) Rules, which is not in existence, however, for the ends of justice we condone the delay under of the Limitation Act, 1963 .
Accordingly, the M.A. No. 350/00865/2025 is allowed.
2. The instant Review Application has been filed by the Applicants/Original Respondents have stated that the respondent/Original applicant was one of the prime accused for misappropriation of money case, therefore, he was suspended in accordance with the provisions of CCS (CCA) Rules and was extended from time to time after proper application of mind and took into consideration the relevant provision.
It has been stated that the basic purpose of suspending of an employee is to ensure that he does not meddle with the investigation of the criminal case or enquiry in departmental proceedings. The case of the applicant is that the Order of Suspension or further Orders were passed without due application of mind or arbitrarily or in accordance with the provisions envisaged under Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules.
This is a case of Postal Department. The applicant has placed a comparative rule position of Postal Manual Vol. III vis-à-vis CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and on that ground has prayed for review of the Order of this Tribunal dated 07.08.2024 passed in O.A. No. 350/00944/2022 and O.A. No. 1596 of 2022.
3. We have perused the materials available on record.
4. It is well settled law that the scope of review is limited to correcting self-evident errors.
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 correct self-evident errors.
5. 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, 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". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". [Emphasis added]
6. Further, in the case of Kamal Kumar Sengupta (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An
