The Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata, has reaffirmed the narrow and exceptional nature of review jurisdiction, holding that mere disagreement with a prior order or re-argument of merits cannot justify review. The judgment underscores that review is not an appeal in disguise and must be confined strictly to errors apparent on the face of the record.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
Dr. Nazrul Islam, a retired IPS officer, challenged disciplinary proceedings initiated against him that resulted in a pension cut. He alleged that the inquiry was conducted ex parte without supplying him with documents, denying him natural justice. He further contended that the disciplinary proceedings could not continue after his retirement since none of the charges alleged were classified as grave misconduct under the All India Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969.
Procedural History
- 2016: Ex parte inquiry conducted; Inquiry Report dated 24.08.2016 submitted without evidence or opportunity for defense.
- 2018: Punishment order issued by Ministry of Home Affairs imposing pension cut.
- 2019: Revision petition dismissed.
- 2021: Review petition rejected.
- 2022: Memorial submitted and rejected.
- 2026: Original Application (OA) filed before CAT Kolkata, which quashed all orders and directed full pension restoration.
- 2026: Review Application filed by the applicant seeking reconsideration of CAT’s own order.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought review of CAT’s order dated 12.01.2026, alleging errors apparent on the face of the record regarding denial of documents, non-conduct of inquiry, and misinterpretation of grave misconduct under AIS (D&A) Rules.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a review petition under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, can be entertained merely because the applicant disagrees with the reasoning or wishes to re-argue the merits, or whether it requires an error apparent on the face of the record.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The applicant argued that three errors were apparent on the face of the record:
- The Tribunal erroneously held that documents were supplied, when the record showed only partial and fraudulent substitution.
- The Tribunal incorrectly stated that the applicant did not participate in the inquiry, ignoring his repeated requests for documents under Rule 8(12) of AIS (D&A) Rules.
- The Tribunal misapplied the law by implying that proceedings could continue post-retirement despite absence of any grave misconduct charge.
He relied on State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta and Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das to assert that review is permissible where the record itself contradicts the Tribunal’s findings.
For the Respondent
No appearance was made by the respondents. The Tribunal proceeded ex parte and evaluated the review application on its own merits.
The Court's Analysis
The Tribunal examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which it held is analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It reiterated the Supreme Court’s consistent position that review is not a substitute for appeal and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or re-argue settled points.
"In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto."
The Tribunal found that the applicant’s grievances were already fully considered in the original OA. His claims of non-supply of documents and lack of inquiry were part of the original submissions and formed the basis of the Tribunal’s decision to quash the proceedings. The fact that the Tribunal did not accept his interpretation of "grave misconduct" or his characterization of the document supply does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
The Tribunal emphasized that an error apparent must be self-evident, requiring no extended reasoning. The applicant’s arguments demanded re-interpretation of evidence and statutory provisions - a task reserved for appellate forums, not review jurisdiction. The Tribunal further noted that the applicant’s review petition was essentially a disguised appeal, seeking a second opportunity to persuade the same bench.
The Court concluded that the original order was well-reasoned, addressed all material issues, and was not vitiated by any patent inconsistency, contradiction, or omission visible on the face of the record.
The Verdict
The review application was dismissed. The Tribunal held that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-agitate merits or substitute appellate review, and that an error apparent on the face of the record must be self-evident and not derivable through reasoning.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Is Not a Second Chance to Argue Merits
- Practitioners must recognize that review petitions are not a tool to re-argue factual or legal disputes already decided.
- Any attempt to re-introduce arguments previously rejected in the original proceeding will be dismissed as an abuse of process.
- The burden lies on the petitioner to demonstrate a patent, visible error - not a difference of opinion.
Documentary Evidence Must Be Clearly Contradictory
- Allegations of procedural irregularities (e.g., non-supply of documents) must be supported by unambiguous documentary proof in the record.
- If the record shows the documents were supplied, even if disputed, the claim of error is not apparent unless the record itself contradicts the finding.
- Mere assertion without documentary corroboration will not suffice.
Statutory Interpretation Errors Are Not Reviewable
- Disagreement with how a statutory provision (e.g., "grave misconduct" under AIS Rules) was interpreted does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Such issues are subject to appellate review, not review jurisdiction.
- Tribunals and courts will not entertain review petitions merely because a different interpretation of law is plausible.
