ORDER

CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J (Oral)

CM APPL. 22839/2024 Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

REVIEW PET. 169/2024

1. The instant petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Article 215 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

“a. Review the present Review Petition and set aside the Judgement and Order dated 15.03.2024 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W. P. (C) No. 3360 of 2022.

b. Award cost of litigations in favour of the Petitioner and against Respondents.

c. Pass such other and further Order or Orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstance of the Case.”

2. The petitioner had filed the captioned writ petition challenging the removal order Ref. No. ED(HR)/NTPC/DISC/04-2021 dated 13th April, 2021, appeal order Ref. No. 01:HR:DISC:CC/9791/Appeal dated 15th June, 2021 and review Ref. No. CMD Sectt:104 dated 23rd October, 2021 by virtue of which the petitioner was terminated from his services.

3. In the said writ petition, this Court had passed the judgment dated 15th March, 2024 (‘impugned judgment’ hereinafter), thereby, dismissing the petition, being devoid of any merit. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the instant review petition.

4. The petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that the impugned judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of record which goes to the root of the matter, thereby, causing him grave injustice.

5. It is submitted that the impugned judgment is contrary to the governing rules of the respondent Company and also against the settled principles of service jurisprudence.

6. It is submitted that despite going to the root of the matter, this Court erred in not giving consideration to the fundamental foundational constituents of the lis.

7. It is submitted that this Court erred in not appreciating the settled law regarding interference in the Removal Order Ref. No. ED(HR)/NTPC/DISC/04-2021 dated 13th April, 2021 issued by the Appointing Authority/Respondent No. 5.

8. It is submitted that this Court failed to give any consideration to the fundamental propositions of the chargesheet and the inquiry report in the disciplinary proceedings, therefore, causing grave injustice to the petitioner

9. It is submitted that this Court erred in not providing reasoning in connection with the conclusion drawn at paragraph nos. 54, 62 and 69 in respect of the removal order, appeal order and review order.

10. It is submitted that this Court erred in not considering the fact that the respondents did not advert any conclusive evidence to substantiate the averments made in the disciplinary proceedings, whereas, the petitioner had duly supplemented the evidence to establish that the averments made in the disciplinary proceedings were right.

11. It is submitted that the conduct of the respondents in the disciplinary proceedings was in contravention to the orders of this Court passed in LPA No. 228/2020 and W.P. (C) No. 4322/2020, whereby, the respective Benches of this Court had directed the respondent Corporation to adhere to the principles of natural justice.

12. It is further submitted that this Court erred in considering or dealing with the crucial submissions made by the petitioner and therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be reviewed and set aside.

13. In view of the foregoing submission, the petitioner, appearing in person, submitted that the above said grounds make an appropriate case for review of the impugned judgment and therefore, the reliefs be granted as prayed.

14. Per Contra, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1 (‘respondent Corporation’ hereinafter) vehemently opposed the present petition submitting to the effect that the same being devoid of any merit is liable to be dismissed.

15. It is submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed after taking into consid