1

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHANDIGARH BENCH

M.A. No. 060/00413/19 in &

RA No. 060/00010/2019 in
OA No. 060/00451/2017

Chandigarh, this 11th day of March, 2019

Rajinder Singh Verma S/o Chhoti Lal Verma, aged 57 years, resident
of House No. T-51/B, Railway Colony No.1, Near Railway Power
House, Jalandhar City -144 001 (Punjab).

.…Review Applicant

Versus

1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway,

Baroda House, New Delhi-110 011
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Ferozepur Division,
Northern Railway, Ferozepur Cantt., Ferozepur-142 047
3. Senior Divisional Engineer-II, Divisional Office Northern Railway,
Ferozepur-142047
4. Assistant Divisional Engineer, Northern Railway, Pathankot -
145 001.

……………..Respondents

ORDER (By Circulation)

BY MRS. P. GOPINATH, MEMBER(A):-

This Review Application has been filed under Rule 22(3) (f)

of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 by the applicants in the O.A

No. 060-00451-2017 seeking review of the order passed by this

Tribunal on 11.05.2018. M.A. No. 060/00413/19 has been filed under

Rule 24 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1985, praying for condoning the

delay of 75 days in filing the Review Application.

 2

2. For the reasons stated in MA No. 413/2019, delay in filing

Review Application is condoned and MA stands disposed of

accordingly.

3. A perusal of order dated 11.05.2018 would show that all

the relevant contentions raised by both sides and decisions cited on

the point were considered by this Tribunal.

4. In the order dated 11.5.2018, it was held as follows:-

“11. Having taken on the duty of railway crossing gateman, it was

the duty of the applicant to ensure safe passage, irrespective of
whatever emergency the public may quote for crossing the railway
line at a time when it was risky to do so. Even the pleadings of a
school bus driver or innocent children should not have made the
gateman fail to do his duty. The safety and security of the respondent
organization primarily depends on the performance of duty by
persons like the gateman, in accordance with the rule book. Failure
to follow the rule book or go beyond the rule book is not a risk to be
taken in any transport operation organisation, which is constantly on
its wheels. The bench would not be tempted to show a leniency as
this would tempt others to take a similar risk.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held that it is a settled position of
law that admission of guilt is a best piece of evidence against the
persons (Delhi Transport Corporation versus Shyam Lal, 2004 (8)
SCC 88, and Pineshbhai Amrutlal Patel versus Education Officer
and Ors., 1995 (1) ALD 500). The court had held that after the
admission of guilt further procedure is required to be followed from
thereon. Whereas the admission of guilt is the best evidence, it is for
the persons making the admission to assess while making the
admission as to why his admission should not be acted upon.
Applicant was given adequate opportunities at the appeal and later at
revision stage to put forward his point of view, and why his admission
of guilt should not be acted. Applicant also does not point out any
defect in the disciplinary procedure nor gives the Tribunal any reason
to interfere in the punishment so awarded, as the admission was not
also due to his own violation.

13. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of

the manner in which the decision is made. When an action is taken
on charges of misconduct, or non-performance of duty by a public
servant, the Tribunal is concerned with whether the competent
authority was just & fair in arriving at a decision, whether the rules of
natural justice are complied with, whether the findings or conclusions
are based on some evidence, and the 9 person conducting the
inquiry has reached a finding of fact or conclusion meriting action by
the disciplinary authority. The Tribunal does not act in a manner as to
re-appreciate the evidence or arrive at its own independent finding. If
the conclusion of finding is one such as a reasonable person would
have reached, the need for interference would not arise as we hold in
this OA. Adequacy or reliability of evidence is not a matter which can
 3

be canvassed before the Tribunal, but before the Disciplinary

Authority.

14. Taking stock of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of

the view that there is no need to interfere with the findings of the
disciplinary authority or the decision of the appellate authority. We
also do not think that the punishment awarded to the applicant is
disproportionate to the gravity of the delinquent act or is against the
principles of proportionality. OA is dismissed accordingly.”

5. One of the grounds for filing the RA is that the Tribunal did

not consider and appreciate that the paramount consideration behind

invoking Rule 14 (ii) of the Railway Servant (Discipline and Appeal)

Rules, 1968 is the impracticability to hold the inquiry and not the

desirability of the Authority to hold or not to hold the inquiry. Review

Applicant also submits that his confession statement dated

21.02.2013 was written under pressure in the presence of seven

Railway servants and which was further used as a tool to remove

him from service. The applicant fails to mention that the driver of the

train who applied the brake after noticing the school bus crossing the

level crossing, was the main witness and the presence of mind of the

driver prevented a major mishap. Since the applicant Gateman was

under instructions from the Station Master to keep the gate closed,

the applicant’s action in opening the gate and allowing passage of

school bus when a train was due, speaks of carelessness,

casualness, and lack of respect for human life. It is specifically

mentioned in the Gateman’s duty chart that he will prevent trespassing

by not only persons but also cattle. The respondents’ detailed instructions

to the applicant Gateman appears to have been given scant compliance

by the applicant who ignored the clause 91 B of the IRPWM which was
 4

regarding ensuring public safety, and the clause of opening the gate

only when it is safe for passage of road traffic.

6. Vide detailed order dated 11.05.2018 passed by this

Tribunal, all the relevant contentions raised by the Review Applicant

were considered and keeping in view the dereliction of duty by the

applicant, admission of guilt by the applicant, material on record,

gravity of the incident, and threat to the safety of public and road

users of the level crossing, the Tribunal was not inclined to interfere

with the findings of the disciplinary authority, or the decision of the

appellate authority, and the punishment awarded to the review

applicant.

7. By filing the present Review Application, applicant is

attempting to re-hear and re-appreciate his entire case which is not

permissible in law. In Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs. Nirmala Kumar

Choudhary – (1995) 1 SCC 170 it was held that the scope of review

is very limited. The court held:

"A review Application can be entertained only on the

ground of error apparent on the face of record and not
on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of
record must be such an error which must strike one
on mere looking at the record and would not require
any long drawn process of reasoning on points where
there may conceivably be two opinions. Re-appraisal
of the entire evidence or error would amount to
exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not
permissible by way of review application. This is the
spirit of order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC.”

8. The Apex Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v.

Kamal Sengupta & Anr. - 2008 (2) SCC 735 has enumerated the

principles to be followed by the Administrative Tribunals when it

 5

exercises the power of review of its own order under Section 22(3)(f)

of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They are :

“(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its

order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is
akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the

grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not
otherwise.

(iii) The expression “any other sufficient reason”

appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the
light of other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be

discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be
treated as an error apparent on the face of record
justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in

the guise of exercise of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section

22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of
a coordinate or larger Bench of the Tribunal or of a
superior Court.

(vii) While considering an application for review, the

Tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to
material which was available at the time of initial decision.
The happening of some subsequent event or
development cannot be taken note of for declaring the
initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of a new or important matter or

evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party
seeking review has also to show that such matter or
evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the
exercise of due diligence, the same could not be
produced before the Court/Tribunal earlier.”

9. This is a case where the Tribunal has considered all the

contentions raised by the applicant in detail. Virtually the applicant

wanted to have a rehearing in the matter under the pretext of Review

 6

Application. Review application cannot be an appeal in disguise. As

such we find no merit in the Review application. It is accordingly

dismissed by circulation.

(P. GOPINATH)
MEMBER (A)

(SANJEEV KAUSHIK)
MEMBER (J)
Dated:
ND*