UNION OF INDIA v. UDAY PRATAP SINGH

2

passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 239/2023 by which this Court had partly allowed the appeal filed by the writ-petitioner. This Court, while allowing the appeal, set aside the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner in respect of deduction of pension on his compulsory retirement and he was held to be entitled to full pension and gratuity on his compulsory retirement.

3. The facts, in brief, as projected by the review petitioners is that the writ petitioner had filed a petition being WPS No. 2583/2012 challenging the order dated 26.09.2011, 01.02.2012 and 12.06.2012 passed by the review petitioners by which the writ petitioner was awarded punishment of compulsory retirement with benefit of 2/3^rdpension and gratuity. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the same upholding the orders passed by the review petitioners. However, on an appeal being filed by the writ petitioner, the same was allowed in part, as aforesaid.

4. Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the review petitioners submits that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and ample opportunity was granted to the writ petitioner to defend his case. The writ petitioner also availed the opportunities to cross examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer, after careful consideration of all the relevant materials, found the charges levelled against the writ petitioner proved and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, having found the guilt proved against the writ petitioner, imposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service with 2/3^rdpensionary benefits and gratuity.

3

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the same warranted no interference by this Court, as was rightly not done by the learned Single Judge. In support of his contentions, he relies on the judgment of Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Shrivastava {(2021) 2 SCC 612}. It is further submitted that as per Rule 77 of the CISF Rules, 2001, the member of the force shall, in respect of all matters regarding condition of service for which no provision or insufficient provisions have been made in these rules, be governed by the rules and others for the time being application to officers holding corresponding posts in the Central Government in respect of such matters. As per Rule 40(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, a government servant compulsorily retired from service as a penalty may be granted by the authority competent to impose such penalty, pension or gratuity or both at a rate not less than two thirds and not more than full compensation or gratuity or both admissible to him on the date of his compulsory retirement. The learned Division Bench, while upholding the order of compulsory retirement passed by the review petitioners, ought to have upheld the order granting 2/3^rdpension and gratuity.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the order passed by this Court on 15.06.2023 and the documents appended thereto.

6. From perusal of the order dated 15.06.2023, passed by this Court in WA No. 239/2023, it transpires that after taking note of Rule 34 of

4

the CISF Rules, 2001, the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner in respect of deduction of 1/3^rdpension and gratuity on compulsory retirement was contrary to Rule 34 of the CISF Rules, 2001. The same was not dealt with by the learned Single Judge and even the counsel for the review petitioners could not give any satisfactory reply.

7. In the facts of the present case, reliance placed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Ajai Kumar Shrivastava (supra) is not relevant to the facts of the case.

8. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the attempt of the review petitioners is to re-agitate the issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. Even otherwise, the law with regard to review of an order is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, which is missing in this case.

9. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope of ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedrue, 1908. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the review petitioner has not produced any ground for review.

5

10. It appears that the review petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others, reported in

AIR 200 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari & Others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 and in the case of

Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd & Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651.

11. As a result, this review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. Sd/- Sd/-

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

Hem