1. Arguments heard.
2. This application has been moved under Rule 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008 seeking review of order dated 27.01.2016, whereby MA 535/2015, for condonation of delay of a considerable period of more than two years in filing OA 502/2015 was rejected.
3. A bare perusal of the order dated 27.01.2016 would reveal that the delay was not condoned because on one hand the petitioner has not been able to assign ‘sufficient cause’ for the same and on the other the his conduct also lacked bona fides.
4. According to the petitioner, the order deserves to be reviewed as it is based on:—
(i) a false representation made by the respondents that had he filed the OA within the prescribed period, he would have been rendered ineligible for be deputed on UN Mission; and
(ii) on a wrong premise that he was required to explain the delay for not filing the OA during the stipulated period of six months.
5. By virtue of Section 14(f) of the Act, this Tribunal has the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), in respect of reviewing its decisions. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the Court may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely—
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made,
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, and
(iii) for any other sufficient reason.
6. It is well settled that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 of 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.
7. Having gone through the record with reference to the ground raised in the review application, we are of the considered opinion that there is no error apparent on the face of record requiring reconsideration of the order dated 27.01.2016.
8. Resultantly, the Review application stands rejected.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made an oral prayer seeking leave of this Tribunal, under Sub section (1) of Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007, to appeal to Hon'ble the Supreme Court against the order.
10. Having considered the factual aspects of the matter and the well settled position of law on the subject, we are of the considered opinion that no point of law of general public importance deserving consideration by the Hon'ble Apex Court is involved. The prayer, accordingly, also stands rejected.