ORDER
V.M VELUMANI, J.
The Review Application has been filed against the judgment dated 09.02.2011 made in W.A(MD) No. 295 of 2010.
2. The Review Petitioner was appointed in the second respondent College as Assistant Professor in Economics Department and he was promoted in the year 1988 as Professor and thereafter promoted and appointed as Principal in the year 1999. While he was working as Principal, alleging various misconducts, charges were framed against him, which also included sexual harassment and the charges were framed based on the complaint given by the first respondent K. Shameem Rani. A retired District Judge was appointed as Enquiry Officer. In the enquiry, the petitioner was given opportunity to defend himself. He cross examined the witnesses produced by the second respondent College. The Enquiry Officer gave a report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved except charge Nos. 4, 10 to 15, 23 and 25. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, the second respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the show cause notice before this Court in W.P No. 37797 of 2003 on the ground that enquiry report was not furnished to him. This Court allowed the said writ Petition by quashing the show cause notice by giving liberty to the second respondent to proceed as per law. After following the procedure, the second respondent by order dated 02.12.2005 dismissed the petitioner from service. The Review petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by filing writ petition in W.P (MD) No. 11618 of 2005. A new governing body was constituted on 26.05.2006 The newly constituted governing body passed a resolution reinstating the petitioner and directed him to withdraw the writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 11618 of 2005. This Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
3. The first respondent filed writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 9491 of 2007 challenging the order of the governing body reinstating the petitioner in service. Another Public Interest Litigation was also filed challenging the same order in W.P(MD) No. 6735 of 2008. The public interest litigation and the writ petition filed by the first respondent were heard together by the Division Bench of this Court and by order dated 30.09.2009, the writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 9491 of 2007 was allowed and the order of reinstatement was set aside.
4. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court in SLP Nos. 35065 and 35066 of 2009. The Apex Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition on 25.01.2010 and stated that it is open to the petitioner to renew his challenge to the order dated 02.12.2005 dismissing the writ petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner filed writ petition in W.P (MD) No. 1132 of 2010 challenging the dismissal order dated 02.12.2005 The learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 21.04.2010 allowed the writ petition on a short ground that committee had not been constituted as per the judgment of the Apex Court to consider the allegations of sexual harassment in the work place. The first respondent filed the writ appeal in W.A(MD) No. 295 of 2010 challenging the order setting aside the order of dismissal dated 02.12.2005 A Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.12.2011 allowed the writ appeal whereby the order of dismissal of Review Petitioner was upheld. The present review petition is filed to review the order dated 09.12.2011 made in W.A(MD) No. 295 of 2010.
5. The petitioner has sought for review of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court alleging that the Division Bench erred in,
(i) holding that the removal of petitioner had become final and its validity cannot be gone into;
(ii) nullifying the effect of the liberty given by the Apex Court in SLP Nos. 35065 and 35066 of 2008 dated 25.01.2010;
(iii) not considering the various grounds raised by the review petitioner.
6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner argued reiterating the grounds raised in the review petition. To support his contentions, he cited and relied on the judgments, which are as follows:
(1) 1965 L.W 164 in Chenchanna Naidu v. The Praja Seva Transports Ltd, Cuddappah.
(2) (2006) 4 SCC 78 in Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt).
(3) (2005) 13 SCC 289 in Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands.
(4) (2005) 4 SCC 741 in Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Nethaji Cricket Club.
(5) (1995) (II) CTC 513 in Baskaran v. Commr. Of College Education,.
6. 2007 (5) CTC 561 in R. Sivakumari v. Ramanathapuram Mavatta Payirchipetra Edainilai Asiriyargal Sangam, rep. By its Secretary, 1/2 72, Mahasakthi Nagar, Collectorate Post, Ramanathapuram 623 503.
7. The learned counsel for the first respondent contended that there is no reason to review the order and review petition is not maintainable, as the Apex Court has already upheld the order of setting aside the order of reinstatement by confirming the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. There is no new grounds or facts urged by the petitioner and there is no error apparent on the face of records in the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed.
8. We have perused and considered the materials available on record and also the order of dismissal passed by the Apex Court.
9. At this juncture, it will be very useful to extract the portion of the order dismissing the SLPS,
“The SLPs are dismissed.
The petitioner submit that he had challenged the order of dismissal dated 02.12.2005 in a Writ Petition; that when the order dated 29.05.2006 was passed reinstating him, he withdrew the said writ petition as it became infructuous; that as the impugned order has set aside the order dated 29.05.2006, he is without remedy. This submission has no basis. As the petitioner states that he withdrew the writ petition challenging the order dated 02.12.2005 in view of the order dated 29.05.2006, having regard to the fact that the order dated 29.05.2006 is now set aside, it is open to the petitioner to renew his challenge to the order dated 02.12.2005 in accordance with law.”
In the said order, the Apex Court has stated that it is open to the petitioner to renew his challenge against the order dated 02.12.2005 in accordance with law.
10. Based on the liberty given by the Apex Court, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P(MD) No. 1132 of 2010. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 21.04.2010 on the limited ground that a proper committee was not constituted to go into the allegation of sexual harassment.
11. The first respondent filed writ appeal No. 295 of 2010 challenging the order of the learned single Judge. A Division Bench considered all the charges levelled against the petitioner and found that all except few charges, were very serious in nature and that they were held proved.
12. At the outset, it must be remembered that a Review Petition is not an appeal. The power of review can be exercised only on very limited grounds such as an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. In view of the above settled principles of review, the Judgments cited and relied by the petitioner do not advance his case on the facts of the 13. We have gone thorough the Judgment of the Division Bench dated 09.12.2011 The Division Bench has elaborately considered all the issues in a proper perspective. The Division Bench came to a conclusion that the proven charges are serious in nature and the order dismissing the petitioner is proper and valid. In addition to considering the nature of proven charges including sexual harassment charges, the Division Bench also considered the issue of Res Judicata. But that was not the sole reason for the Bench allowing the writ appeal filed by the first respondent. The writ appeal was allowed on the basis of proven charges which are serious in nature and the order of dismissal is not disproportionate.
14. For the reasons stated above, we hold that there are no grounds for review. In the result, the Review Petition is dismissed.
Comments