TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 998
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was withdrawn by him on 13.9.2011 and the following order was passed: "Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition to enable the petitioner to file a review petition. Permission is granted. The special leave petition is disposed of as withdrawn." 3. According to the petitioner, there is error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court while delivering its judgment on 21.4.2011 has not taken into consideration: (i) That the additional evidence taken on record by the Inquiry Officer was in violation of Rule 14 (15) of CCS (CCA) Rules (for short 'Rules') and non-compliance thereof had caused material prejudice to the petitioner; (ii) The Inquiry Officer was biased and this Court had held that since the petitioner had not approached the reviewing authority for change of the Inquiry Officer, his plea was turned down, while as a matter of fact, the petitioner had approached the reviewing authority vide Annexure P-7 for change of Inquiry Officer; and (iii) There was violation of Rule 17 of the Rules which mandated the Disciplinary Authority to supply to the petitioner, the copy of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pective so long the point has been dealt with and answered. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order, which has the normal feature of finality. 12. Having observed so, it would be seen that the petitioner is seeking the present review on the ground that points raised in the petition have not been dealt in correct perspective, though the same have admittedly been dealt with. We are afraid that such questions cannot be gone into and determined by this court in exercise of its review jurisdiction, particularly when a detailed judgment running into 35 pages has been delivered by this court, wherein not only the factual but even the legal aspects of the case have been dealt with in detail." 5. Undisputedly, all the points as have been raised herein have been dealt with in detail not only by the learned Single Judge but even by this Court while deciding LPA No. 163 of 2009. The learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecorded its findings and that such findings have not been communicated to the petitioner whereby the whole proceedings are vitiated; and v) There is violation of the principles of natural justice in not granting an opportunity for personal hearing." This Court dealt with all the aforesaid five contentions in detail and dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner-appellant. 7. While dealing with the first contention as now again raised by the petitioner in this petition, this Court held: "4. The main allegation is that after closing the evidence, new evidence has been permitted to be adduced. Whether it is permissible is the question. Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services ( Classification, Control and Appeal ) Rules, 1965, provides for procedure for imposing major penalties. Sub Rule 15 of Rule 14 reads as follows: "(15) If it shall appear necessary before the close of the case on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, the Inquiring Authority may, in its discretion, allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the list given to the Government servant or may itself call for new evidence or recall and re-examine any witness and in such case the Government s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it P-2 originally produced was the computer print out. Likewise, Exhibit P-4A to P-7A are the details of embarkation of the delinquent officer and Smt. Deepa Singh. In the place of those certified copies, computer print outs had already been produced. Exhibit P-11A to P-13A are again the certified copies of the embarkation and dis-embarkation cards, the computer print outs of which had already been produced. Exhibit P-42 to P-48 are the applications of the delinquent officer for visa on arrival, his clear photograph, embarkation form, embarkation form of Ms. Deepa Singh, application for duplicate Passport of delinquent officer, visa application form, the flight manifest of the return flight from Bangkok to Delhi and letter of Royal Thai Embassy, New Delhi, regarding the travel of delinquent officer. Going through the proceedings of inquiry, we find that these documents have been produced with clear three days notice to the delinquent officer and on 27.12.2003, the appellant has acknowledged the receipt of the documents. On 3.1.2004, the statement of the delinquent officer as counter signed by him reads as follows: "I do not want to lead any evidence in rebuttal to rebut the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e now tendered to fill in a lacuna in the evidence of the presenting side." 7. In this context, we may also extract the statement of the delinquent officer with regard to Exhibits P-49 and P-50 on 3.1.2004. " I do not want to lead any evidence to rebut the documents Exhibit P-49 and P-50, which have been produced by the presenting side in the evidence today. I shall, however, rebut these documents in the course of my arguments with regard to their admissibility and late production etc." Thus, the only objection of the delinquent officer is with regard to admissibility of the documents and not on the contents of the documents. Exhibit P-49 is a letter from the Royal Thai Embassy, New Delhi addressed to the Registrar of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. The letter reads as follows: "The Royal Thai Embassy presents its compliments to the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla and would like to refer to the latter's letter No. HHC/VIG/PS/2003-3585 dated 26th December 2003 requesting the Embassy to certify the copies of documents of Shri Kiran Pal Singh. In this connection, the Embassy has the honour to inform the High Court that it has attested a copy of Shri Kiran Pal Singh's v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce to lead in rebuttal to the documentary evidence referred to above. Thus, it is not a case of evidence adduced in violation of the Rules or it is not a case of no evidence. It is a fact and it has been also established that the delinquent was in Thailand between 10th December, 2002 to 22nd December, 2002, for which period he later submitted an application for earned leave on medical grounds. As far as the illicit relationship of Advocate Deepa Singh with the delinquent officer is concerned, the husband of Smt. Deepa Singh and also the son of Smt. Deepa Singh have stated in detail before the inquiry authority. Though it was not necessary for us to extensively refer to facts as above, in view of the vehement contention advanced by the petitioner that it is a report on no evidence and that it is a report on evidence otherwise impermissible and that the version of the delinquent has not been taken into consideration, we have referred to the same. It is settled law that the High Court is not a Court of appeal under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the decision of the authorities holding departmental inquiry. The Court is concerned to determine whether the inquiry held by a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the Inquiring Authority. Simply because, some orders were passed by the Inquiring Authority, which were not to the liking of the petitioner and according to the perception of the petitioner those orders were wrong, therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in a biased manner. In the application dated 31.12.2003, it has not been stated that the documents taken on record by the Inquiring Authority have caused prejudice to the petitioner. In the application dated 31.12.2003, there is no allegation that statements of witnesses and documents were not supplied to the petitioner at the proper time. In the application, there is no allegation that Inquiring Authority has not given appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. The application dated 31.12.2003 for change of Inquiring Authority was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and was rejected. The rejection was accepted by the petitioner. He did not challenge the order of Disciplinary Authority rejecting the request to change Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority has denied the allegation of bias in his reply. The petitioner has failed to establish that Inqui....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thus requirement of right to reason has been satisfied. Learned counsel for the appellant inviting reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Pragdas Vrs. Union of India, reported in 1967 MPLJ 868, submitted that the disciplinary authority should have recorded the reasons for the findings. At paragraph 5 of the judgment, it has been held as follows: " The reasons in support of the order had to be recorded and disclosed to the parties concerned by the Central Government; the reasons could not be gathered from the "notings" made in files of the Central Government. Recording of reasons and disclosure thereof is not a mere formality. The party affected by the order has a right to approach this Court in appeal and an effective challenge against the order may be raised only if the party aggrieved is apprised of the reasons in support of the order." 24. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the principle of law as stated in the decision. But as already observed above, the disciplinary authority in the instant case has only accepted the report of the inquiring authority and its findings on the findings thus accepted and recorded, which had already been communicated to the pet....