Birdhi Chand Meena vs RAILWAY BOARD on 14 October 2026

ORDER

Per : Hon’ble Shri Lok Ranjan, Member (A)

The present Review Application had been filed by the Applicant for review of the Order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.015/2023. The basic ground for seeking such a review had been cited to be that the termination of the Review Applicant was on the basis of allegations which were stigmatic and founded NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

on his alleged misconduct ; and was thus deemable as a punitive termination. At the stage of hearing of this Review Application, it had been admitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that no such ground had been taken in the O.A. No.015/2023. It is thus clear that the Review Applicant is seeking to raise a ground distinct from those he had raised vide the O.A. No.015/2023.

2. Relevantly, the Administrative Tribunals Act, prescribes vide Section 22(3)(f) that the Tribunal has power to review its orders like a civil court. This would imply that the power to review would be possible to be exercised essentially either on discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge and therefore, could not be produced by the party at the time when the order sought to be reviewed was made ; or where mistake or error is apparent on the face of record. A plain reading of the Review Application makes it clear that it attempts to re-argue the legal position obtaining in the matter decided vide Order dated 26.02.2026 in O.A. No.015/2023.

3. We find that this would fall well outside the limited scope of review provided under the law. Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that such matters cannot be heard again on merit in the guise of the power of review and further, if the order or decision is wrong, the same cannot be corrected in the guise of power of review. The scope of a Review Application and the circumstances under which such power of review can be exercised was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and Others, reported NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

in (1999) 9 SCC 596, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held inter alia as hereunder :

“The power of the Tribunal to review its judgment is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by them at the time when the order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction on an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ used in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule”.

Further also, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, has observed that re-appreciating facts or law amounts to overstepping the jurisdiction conferred upon the Courts/Tribunals while reviewing their own decisions.

4. It is noted that the present R.A. had not been filed in relation to discovery of new and important matter of evidence ; thus, the question of there being any such matter of evidence as one which had even after exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge and therefore, could not be produced by the party at the time when the Order dated 26.02.2026 was passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No.015/2023 – which is sought to be reviewed vide the present R.A. – would not arise at all. Further, neither any patent error of fact on record had been pointed out ; NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

nor the present R.A. was shown to be arising out of any mistake or error apparent on the face of record.

Instead, the learned Counsel for the Applicant had sought to argue that the Order dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Tribunal in the O.A. No.015/2023 ought to have held the Respondents’ Order dated 28.08.2019 – for termination of the Applicant’s service as I.R.S.E.(P) with immediate effect – to be stigmatic. Such claim of the ground of the termination order being punitive was sought to be argued to be so established ; in support of which the learned Counsel for the Review Applicant had sought to present/submit certain Judgments/Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and present his interpretations of the same. Such attempt to seek re-appreciation of law by the Tribunal was also not permitted in review. Hence, the present Review Application was found to be seeking a correction in a way that was not a patent error which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it.

5. In the conspectus of the foregoing, we find that the present Review Application is not within the very limited scope of review in law. Consequently, this Review Application was untenable and found to fail.

6. Therefore, the present Review Application No.002/2026 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.

(LOK RANJAN) (RANJANA SHAHI) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Kumawat NATHU LAL KUMAWAT

NATHU LAL KUMAWAT