CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI

R.A. No.126 of 2015

IN

O.A. No.4143 of 2011

Orders reserved on : 11.12.2018

Orders pronounced on : 20.12.2018

Hon’ble Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A)

Hon’ble Mr. S.N. Terdal, Member (J)

Reena Ashish

W/o Sh. Ashish Ahooja

R/o Y-216, Regenc Part-II

DLF, Phase-IV, Gurgaon

Haryana

.... Review Applicant

(By Advocate : Shri Naresh Kaushik)

VERSUS

1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

Office of Chief Secretary (Education)

Through Principal Secretary

Old Secretariat, Delhi – 110054.

2. The Director of Education

Through Director Education

Old Secretariat, Delhi – 110054.

.....Review Respondents

(By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi)

O R D E R

Ms. Nita Chowdhury, Member (A):

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By filing this RA, the applicant is seeking review of

Order dated 23.12.2014 in OA No. 4143/2011, the operative

portion of the same reads as under:-

2

“6.

In the circumstances, the orders passed by

the disciplinary authority is found vitiated. In the wake,

the order passed by the appellate authority upholding

the vitiated order of disciplinary authority also turn

decrescent. The impugned orders are accordingly

quashed. The respondents would be at liberty to issue

fresh disagreement note to the applicant/order further

enquiry in the matter, by appointing an Enquiry Officer

different from one who submitted the report dated

07.09.2001. In the facts of the case, the applicant would

not be entitled to any back wages for the intervening

period and a decision regarding treatment of said period

i.e. whether the same should be treated as part of

service or dies-non would be taken by the disciplinary

authority after the fresh/final view is taken in the

disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant

by charge sheet dated 30.04.2001 (ibid). OA stands

disposed of. No costs.”

3. Counsel for the review respondents submitted that the

Order passed by the Tribunal under review is a perfect and

legal one and the present Review Application is not

maintainable in view of judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court in Union of India and others vs. Upendra Singh,

1994 (3) CC 357.

4. We have perused the grounds A. to F. as raised by the

review applicant in this Review Application and the

applicant‟s counsel also emphasized on the same. However,

this Court finds that the said grounds do not come within the

ambit of provisions of review, as it is quite clear that this

Tribunal in the said Order under review had categorically

held that „the report of enquiry officer is as absurd as it could

be‟ and also observed that „when the disciplinary authority

remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer for further

3

enquiry, she refused to do so and emphasize that the charges

levelled against the applicant are not substantiated‟ and

further observed that „Once the disciplinary authority had

already found the charge against the applicant was proved,

the disagreement note remained a mere formality and eye

wash. In the above circumstances and having regard to the

submissions of the counsel for the review applicant, this

Tribunal observed in the concluding para as quoted above. As

such the grounds alleged in this Review Applications are not

sustainable in the eyes of law. Rather it can be said that the

review applicant is trying to re-ague the whole case, which is

not permissible under the provisions of review.

5. So far as the contention of the review applicant that

there was tremendous delay in passing a disagreement note

and the impugned order by the disciplinary authority is

concerned, the same is also not sustainable to be taken into

consideration in review in view of categorical finding of this

Tribunal as noted above.

6. In view of the above, this Court finds that the grounds

taken in the present Review Application are not based on any

error apparent on the face of record. In fact, the review

applicant is quest