IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. | 1-/3' /2006 {Arising out ofthe writ petition No.3251 of 199' PETITIONERS APPLICANTS ^- -•t. RESPONDENTS OPPOSITE PARTIES 4.,-' o. Smt Rajeshwari Agrawal, Widow of S.K. Agrawal, Aged about 52 vears. Rajesh Agrawal, Aged about 31 years. Brijesh Agrawal, Aged about 29 years. Uruesh Agraiyal, Aged about 27 years. Shivendra Agrawal, Aged about 36 vears. AU 2 to 5 are sons of Shri S.K. Agrawal (Sole Petitioner) aad resident of Purani Basti, Baniapara, Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ^i. Central Bank of India, A NationaUzed Bank, Having its Central OfBce at Chandrainukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. 2. The General Manager, Central Bank of India, Central Oflice at Chandraniukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. 3.,The Deputy General Manager, Zonal OfSce, Central Bank of India 33, Netaji Subhash Road, KoU<ata 700001 T- 2- ' • <i, APPLICATION FOR^EVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED BY '^' THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI S.K. AGNIHOTRI ON 19/1/06 IN WRIT PETITION N0.3251/94 ^ j<? '•L-^ AF^ ^> / - j. tf £ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPl^? M. C. C. No. 143 of2006 z^ AppUcaiits Siat. Rajeshwari Agrawal & others Versus ts Central Baak oflndia & ofhers st~. Post for order on 3 1 "March, 2006. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge . [U W~w v^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.C.C. No. 143 of 2006 AppHcants Sint. Rajeshwari Agrawal &, ofhers Versus Respondents Central Bank of India & others Singfe Beaclt ; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agniliotri. Shri Ravi Ranjan Siuha, Advocate for fhe applicants. Noue for the respondents. . 9.. ORDER (^l^fclarch, 2006) The foUowiag order ofthe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. The applicants have filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 19th Jaauaiy, 2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3251 of 1994 on fhe groiuid that there is apparent error on the face of the record. It is stated that fhe norms for disposal of fhe disciplmary proceedings dated 10th Deceinber, 1990, addressed to the Zonal MEinagers/Regional Maaagers/Chief Managers of Boinbay inaia office/Chief Managers ofthe Central OfBce of fhe respondeut-Baak provides ccrtain guidelines. The guidelme No.2 'Disciplmaiy Aufhority provides for submission of the findings of the enquiry officer to the disciplinary authority. It further provides that fhere is no need to chaage the disciplinaiy aufhorily ifthe enqiiiry ofBcer has 1 i:'r ah-eady submitted the findings to the disciplniary autttority. Clause 2 reads as under:- "DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY: The DiscipUnaiy Aufhority has only to consider fhe findings of the Enquiiy Officer, amve at a decision and pass his final orders. Hence (i) In cases where the findings of the Enquny Officer have ah-eady been subiaitted to the Disciplinary Aufhority, fhere is no need to chauge the DiscipUnaiy Authority (ii) Ifthe Findings have not been subinitted to the Disciplinaiy Authority at the time of his transfer, in such cases the succeediag Chief Manager/Asstt, Geueral Manager should adopt the chai^esheet, appomtnient of Euquiiy OfEcer,/Presenting OfEcer etc. by issuing suitable notificatiou and a-ct as Disciplinaiy Authority. Notavithstanduig what is stated above, if the Disciplinaiy Authority is transferred on promotion, the succeediag Chief Maiiager/Asstt. General Manager wffl act as Disciplinaiy Authority, after issuing suitable notification. This circular was filed as Aruiexure P/9 to the main petition. Leamed counsel appearing for the review appUcants submittcd fhat fhe order passed by one Shri S. R. Nareiyaaazt, who had joined the post of Zonal Ofiicer, was appointed in place of Shri P. R. Sefhi, as disciplinaiy authorily, has no competence to pass the order of punishiueut in view of fhe guidelines issiied by fhe respondent- Bank. It v/as further subinitted fhat fhe findings of fhe enquiiy officerwas submitted to Shri P. R. Sethi on 26.9.1992 and fhereafter Shri P. R. Sethi was transfen-ed to soine other place and in his place Shri S. R. Naj-ayanan was appointed as Zonal Maaager. The Zonal Manager, being discipUnary aiifhority, in normal circuinstaaces, pass fhe order of punishiaent but in the facts of the present case when fhe enquiry report was subinitted to his predecessor before 26.9.1992, the order ought to have becn passed by Shri P. R. Sethi, himsetf. After having heard leamed counsel for the applicants aad perusiag the recoids it is found that during arguinent ia the course of hearing fhe writ petition, leamed counsel fer the appUcants/writ petitioners was asked specifically as to who was the coinpetent aufhority to pass the order of punishment, learaed counsel was not in a position to point out the same at that time. Now, fhe question that anses for decision is, "as to whether further contention/argunient can be entertained in review petition ?. It is weU setfled principle of law that review cannot be sought for the purpose of rehearing aad for a fresh decision on the case. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s Northera India Catezers (Indiai Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhl { (1980) 2 S.C.C. 167) in para-8 observed as unden- "8. It is well setfled that a party is uot entitled to seek a review of a judgment deUvered by this Court merely for the pui-pose of a rehearmg and a fi-esh decision ofthe case. The normal principle is ttiat a judgineut prouounced by the Coiirt is final, and departure from that principle is justrfied only when circtunstaaces of a substantial and coinpeUing character inake it necessaiy to do so: Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthau14' For instance, if fhe attention of the Court is not drawn to a uiaterial statutory provisiou duruig fhe onginal hearing, fhe Coiirt wffl review its judgment; G.L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta15. The Coiirt inay also reopen its judginent if a inanifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do fuU and effective justice: O. N. Mohuidioo v. Distt. Judge, Dettu16, Power to review its judgments has been conierred on the Supreine Court by Article 137 ofthe Constitution, and that power is subject to fhe provisions of any law inade by Parliament or the niles made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an appUcation for review is entertained only on a ground ineutioned '<.. in Onder 47 Rule 1 of the Code of CivU Procedure, and in a crimuial proceeding on fhe ground of an error apparent on fhe face ofthe record (OrderXL, Rule 1, Supreine Court Rules, 1966). But whatever fhe nature of fhe proceediag, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding caanot be equated with fhe origiiial hearing of fhe case, aad the finality of the judginent delivered by fhe Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring oiiiission or patent inisteke or like grave error has crept in earUer byjudicial faUibiUts-": Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib17" Review lies ou any of the grouiids specified under Order 47 Rule 1 of fhe Code ofCivil Pincedui-e which provides:- 1, Application for review of judgnient.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a deciee or ordcr fi'om. which an appeal is allowed, biit froni which no appeal has been pr^fen^d, (b) by a decice or order froin which no appeal is aUowed, or (c) by a decision on a refeicnce froiu a Court of SinaB Causes, and who, from. the discovery of new and unportant niatter or evideuce which, after the exercise of due diligeace was not wifhin his knowledge or coiild not be produced by Tiim at the tinie when fhe decree was ps-ssed or order niade, or on account of sonie mistake or error apparent oa fhe face of the recoid, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtaui a icview of fhe decice passed or order inade agauist hun, inay apply for a review of judginent to fhe Court which passed the deci^e or inade the oider. (2) A party who is not appealing froui a decree or order inay apply for a review ofjiidgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by soiae other party except where tiie ground of such appeal is coininon to the applicant aiid the appeUant, or when, bein.g respondent, he can piesent to the AppeUate Court the case on which he appUes for the review. (Explanation.—Thefact fhat the decision ou a question oflaw on which fhe judgnient of fhe Court is based has beeu revei-sed or niodified by tiie subsequent decision of a superior Court jn any other case, shaU not be a ground for the review of such judginent} 7. The Supreme Court ia Governmeat of T.N. and othea-s Vs. M. Aaaachu Asari and others { (2005) 2 SCC 332} observed as under:- "3. ................ Iffhe petitioaeis failed to fiimish fhe necessaiy inaterial even during fhe pendency of appeal in this Court, tfaat is no ground to review the judginent.............." 8. In the case of Kerala State Eleetricity Board Vs. Hltech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others { (2005) 6 S.C.C. 651} the Supreine Coiirt observed as under:- "10. ..................... .."To permit fhe review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition iato an appeal iu. disguise. 9. Proin fhe above-stated observations, inade by the Suprenie Court, it is crystal clear that the review petition cannot be entertained for rehearing the case while considering further subiaission of the leanied counsel. In the present case, learaed counsel for the petitioners, at the tinie of argunient in writ petition had faUed to niake aay subiuission in i^spect of the issue i-aised in the review petition. Leamed counsel for the petitioners, as stated, was clearfy not in a position to point out as to who was the coiupetent aiifhorily, in ttie couise ofhearing ofthe writ petition, 10. For fhe reasons stated above, the review petition is disniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agi Judge tri Thakur