Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 800 (MP)

STATE OF M. P. v. S. S. BHADAURIA

2000-08-10

FAIZAN UDDIN, N.G.KARAMBELKAR

body2000
FAKHRUDDIN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD. THIS petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 24-8-1998 passed by the Tribunal in O. A. No. 777/1998. The respondents had filed this original Application, which came up for hearing on 24-8-1998. On behalf of the State Shri p. D. Agarwal, Panel Lawyer had appeared and reply was not filed by him. The Tribunal has specifically noted that reply has not been filed. There is no use to give more time to the respondents to file reply, as the facts of this case are not in dispute. The Tribunal, therefore, in view of this statement proceeded to decide the matter and held that before initiating enquiry after the retirement of the applicant, prior sanction of the Governor had not been taken. The order initiating departmental proceedings against respondent S. S. Bhadoriya was quashed. The Tribunal, however, in the impugned order gave liberty to the State to initiate such enquiry afresh after removing the infirmities. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER, the State filed M. A. No. 251/1998, i. e. , review petition, on 3-10-1998. This review petition was barred by time. No application for condonation of delay was filed. The Tribunal issued notice and thereupon reply was filed. In the order passed on 4-5-2000 in the review petition, the Tribunal has noted that the review application has apparently been filed after expiry of the presecribed period so it is barred by limitation because the impugned order has been passed on 24-8-1998 in O. A. No. 777/1998 while the review petition has been filed on 3-10-1998 seeking the review of the said order. No application for condonation of delay has been filed. The cause of delay stated in the petition and in the affidavit is that the Panel Lawyer did not inform the result of the O. A. in time and the facts came to their knowledge only on 23-9-1998. Shri J. D. Suryawanshi, learned Government advocate in usual fairness informed that the earlier Panel Lawyer, who appeared on 24-8-1998 and the counsel, who appeared on 4-5-2000, is the same. ( 3 ) IN the circumstances, in our opinion, there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise the Tribunal has considered and has found that,no charge-sheet was served on 29-7-1997, as stated in the review petition and a blank envelope was handed over to the employee. ( 3 ) IN the circumstances, in our opinion, there is no illegality committed by the Tribunal. Even otherwise the Tribunal has considered and has found that,no charge-sheet was served on 29-7-1997, as stated in the review petition and a blank envelope was handed over to the employee. The Tribunal has further noted that on perusal of the papers as submitted by the applicant alongwith this review petition, it is apparent that a sealed cover including charge-sheet was served on the non-applicant just before his retirement. But, the receipt does not disclose that what matter were kept in the envelope and served on the applicant. It is surprising that why the applicants have filed this review petiton when they have a right to initiate enquiry after obtaining proper sanction from the Governor and they are not exercising such discretion. ( 4 ) THE Tribunal has further noted that the applicants State had a right to file reply in O. A. but they did not file so and have filed this review petition to fill the lacuna and wants to reopen the matter by this review petition. The petitioners cannot be permitted to do so under these circumstances. ( 5 ) IT is well settled principle that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in Court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the Judges, to call the attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must, necessarily end there, (See, State of maharashtra v. Ramadas Shrlnivas Nayak and another ). ( 6 ) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parlson Devi and others v. Sumitrl Devi and others, has held the review jurisdiction as under:-"9. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must, necessarily end there, (See, State of maharashtra v. Ramadas Shrlnivas Nayak and another ). ( 6 ) THE Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Parlson Devi and others v. Sumitrl Devi and others, has held the review jurisdiction as under:-"9. Under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil procedure Code a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47, Rule 1, civil Procedure Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, Civil procedure Code it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". ( 7 ) HAVING thus examined the matter from all angles in our opinion, no case has been made out for exercise of the jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting with the case, we would like to express our serious concern regarding appearance and non-filing of replies/returns/ counters. The matter is within the domain of the State to see that its case is properly put up and prompt action is taken. It is for the Chief secretary, Principal Law Secretary and the advocate General of the State to take proper steps and to place their House in proper order so that replies/returns/counters are filed in time. ( 9 ) COPIES of this order shall be sent to each of them and report may be submitted to this Court regarding the remedial measures taken. ( 10 ) THE petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Photo Copies to all concerned. Registry to do the needful. Petition dismissed. .