JUDGMENT Vijay Manohar Sahai, J. 1. We have heard Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Master, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Transfer Application No. 60 of 2009 as well as the order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the Tribunal in Review Application being R.A. No. 32 of 2012. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was selected and appointed as short duty Telephone Operator in 1978 and she was employed regularly on 17.11.1979. Pursuant to the advertisement issued by UCO Bank, the petitioner submitted her application and later she was selected and appointed as Clerk on 3.10.1980. As such, she continued to work at two places, namely, Department of Telecommunication (after converted into BSNL) and UCO Bank. 3.1 In the meantime, the petitioner was granted time bound one promotion after 16 years of service as Junior Supervisor and discharged duties as Telephone Operator. The petitioner continued to serve the respondent's department as well as UCO Bank from 1979 to 1997. 3.2 When this scandal was detected by CBI, Criminal Case No. 407 of 1998 was registered against the petitioner and ultimately vide judgment and order dated 6.11.1999, the petitioner was convicted under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code. However, she was given benefit under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. 3.3 Prior thereto, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 17.10.1997 and vide Memorandum dated 15.1.1998, departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner wherein various charges of misconduct were alleged against the petitioner. The first charge is that the petitioner while functioning as Telephone Operator in Telecom department, she has illegally and unauthorizedly applied for regular appointment in the Bank without prior permission or even knowledge of department. The second charge is that the petitioner illegally accepted dual appointment in UCO Bank on 3.10.1980 despite the fact that she was already in Central Government service since 16.11.1979 which amounted to deceptive integrity of a Government servant. The second charge is that the petitioner illegally accepted dual appointment in UCO Bank on 3.10.1980 despite the fact that she was already in Central Government service since 16.11.1979 which amounted to deceptive integrity of a Government servant. The third charge is that the petitioner illegally served in two different organizations as a regular employee and received salaries and other financial benefits from both the departments simultaneously in contravention of Rules and Regulations of both the departments concealing the fact. The fourth charge is hat the petitioner entered into cash transaction by way of receipt of salary and other financial beneficiary gain from the Bank and did not intimate the Telecom department. 3.4. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 21.12.2002, which was supplied to the petitioner vide communication dated 1.1.2003 requiring the petitioner to submit representation, if any, against the Inquiry Report, which opportunity she indeed availed by submitting representation. UCO Bank terminated her service vide order dated 30.3.1999. However, invoking the provision of Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, vide order dated 21.3.2003, the petitioner was compulsory retired by the BSNL w.e.f. 31.3.2003. 3.5. Thereafter, show-cause notice dated 14.5.2003 was issued by BSNL to the petitioner seeking enhancement to the punishment to dismissal. Against the said show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted her representation dated 18/19.6.2003. The said notice for enhancement of punishment was challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3665 of 2003 on 24.6.2003. On 27.6.2003, Revisional Authority of BSNL enhanced the punishment of the petitioner from compulsory retirement to dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner challenged the said dismissal order by filing Civil Application No. 4322 of 2003 with a prayer to amend the main Special Civil Application No. 3665 of 2003. On 7.7.2003, the petitioner withdrew Special Civil Application No. 3665 of 2003 as well as Civil Application No. 4322 of 2003 with a view to file fresh petition challenging all the orders. 3.6. Thereafter, another writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 9808 of 2003 was preferred challenging the dismissal order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the Revisional Authority of BSNL. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2006 whereby this Court directed the competent authority of BSNL to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the order dated 24.8.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3665 of 2003. The said petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.1.2006 whereby this Court directed the competent authority of BSNL to reconsider the case of the petitioner in light of the order dated 24.8.2003 passed in Special Civil Application No. 3665 of 2003. 3.7 In compliance of the said direction of this Court, the respondents reconsidered the matter of the petitioner and passed order dated 8.5.2006 rejecting the representation dated 24.6.2003 of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 12853 of 2006. Thereafter, the jurisdiction of BSNL was conferred to the Tribunal and accordingly the said writ petition was transferred to the Tribunal and registered as Transfer Application No. 60 of 2009. The said Transfer Application came to be dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Review Application No. 33 of 2012 which also came to be dismissed by the impugned order dated 7.9.2012. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that initially, the petitioner was appointed as short duty Telephone Operator in 1978 and she became regular employee w.e.f. 17.11.1979. Thereafter, she appeared in the examination of UCO Bank for the post of Clerk, got selected and thereafter, she performed duties at both the places, namely, Department of Telecommunication (after converted into BSNL) and UCO Bank and also received salaries from both the places. 5. Mr. P.H. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently urged that as the petitioner was appointed by the Department of Telecom, after the creation of BSNL, she was on deputation with the BSNL and hence, she could not be terminated by an Officer of BSNL. The other argument is that even assuming that the petitioner was an employee of BSNL, then her services could be terminated by Deputy General Manager and not by Area Manager. He relied on the order dated 22.3.2007 passed by the Tribunal in Original Application No. 58 of 2007 in the case of G.M. Patel vs. Union of India and others. 6. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered entire facts of the case and dealt with each contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 17 and 18 is extracted below:- “17. 6. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has considered entire facts of the case and dealt with each contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The findings recorded by the Tribunal in paragraphs 17 and 18 is extracted below:- “17. We may also hold that plea raised by applicant that competent authority had not inflicted punishment, is totally unwarranted and baseless for the reasons that in earlier proceedings taken before Hon'ble High Court on the same subject, no such plea was raised. Furthermore, reliance placed on GM Patel (supra) would not be applicable in present case for the reason that in said case, the respondents were not able to point out who was the competent authority; while in the present case, the respondents making reference to circular dated 8.2.2001 issued by Ministry of Communications, Dept. of Telecommunications addressed to CMD, BSNL clearly clarified that the existing Disciplinary Authorities/Appellate Authorities specified in the schedule annexed to CCS (Civil Application) Rules, 1965 and SRO No. 620 dated 28.2.1957 as amended from time to time, will continue to exercise disciplinary/appellate jurisdiction over Group A, B, C & D employees of the Dept. of Telecom on deemed transfer to BSNL. Thus, we do not find any substance in said contention. 18. Taking a cumulative view of matter and in view of discussion made herein above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of present case, we have no hesitation to hold that applicant who had been convicted in a criminal proceedings, and which findings have attained finality, taking recourse to Rule 19 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, cannot be faulted. No exceptions can be taken to findings arrived at by the competent authority. We do not find any force and substance in various contentions raised by the applicant. TA is found to be bereft of any merit and accordingly dismissed. No costs.” 7. The review application being R.A. No. 32 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the Tribunal did not consider its order in the case of G.M. Patel vs. Union of India and others in its true perspective. The Tribunal has rejected the review application by recording the findings in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order dated 7.9.2012 which is extracted below:- “5. The Tribunal has rejected the review application by recording the findings in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order dated 7.9.2012 which is extracted below:- “5. In our considered view, applicant is virtually challenging the findings of this Tribunal in present R.A. which is impermissible as per settled law. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal & other vs. Kamal Sengupta & another, 2008 (8) SCC 612 has summarized the scope of review. Vide para 35 thereof, Hon'ble Court summarized the entire case laws as follows:- “35. The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments 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 Rules 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 of 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 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Ratio laid down in the afore-noted judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. Ratio laid down in the afore-noted judgment is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances of present case. We may note that applicant who was in service with two establishments of the Government had raised the plea of mercy, cannot be allowed to raise finger against the judicial bodies making sweeping statement, vexatious in nature.” 8. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in the Transfer Application as well as in the Review Application as the petitioner had worked at two departments simultaneously for about 18 years and drawn salary from two departments. In our considered opinion, the petitioner has rightly been dismissed from service. We do not find any error in the impugned orders passed by the Tribunal. The present petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.