Nisha Gopal Gangal Vs the Member Secreary

THE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL SILKWORM SEED ORGANIZATION, CENTRAL SILK BOARD, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, CSB COMPLEX, BTM LAYOUT, HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE 560068.

¶26

UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, UDYOG BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 11.

¶27

K. L. RAJANNA, SCIENTIST D., CSB COMPLEX, HOSUR ROAD, MADIVALA, BANGALORE 560068.

¶28

…RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI JAYAKARA SHETTY H., CGSC FOR R1 TO R5)

¶30

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 07.11.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION No.12329/2018 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY ALL THE SERVICE BENEFITS AND RETIREMENTS BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER AS SHE HAS ATTAINED SUPERANNUATION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:14593-DB RP No. 591 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶36

ORAL ORDER

¶37

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶38

The petitioner is before this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short 'CPC'] seeking review of the order dated 07.11.2023 passed in Writ Petition No.12329/2018, whereby the petitioner's challenge to the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, in OA No.170/00082/2016 arising out of the order of penalty of dismissal dated 27.03.2014, came to be dismissed.

¶39

Heard Sri M. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior counsel appearing for Sri T. A. Karumbaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. Jayakara Shetty, learned Central Government Standing Counsel [CGSC] for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:14593-DB RP No. 591 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the authority competent to impose penalty on the petitioner, who was working as Scientist-C, which is equivalent to the post of Deputy Director is, Chairman and that the penalty imposed by the Member Secretary is wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the petitioner had been continuously submitting leave letters, which were not considered and were pending before the authorities; that the petitioner had undergone bypass surgery and was suffering from neck pain. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the penalty of dismissal is disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the charge.

¶43

On the other hand, learned CGSC for respondent Nos.1 to 5 would submit that the competent authority to impose penalty insofar as Deputy Director / Scientist-C is, Member Secretary and the Appellate Authority is, Chairman. Learned CGSC further submits that no such ground was urged before the Tribunal or before this Court in the writ petition. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶44

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:14593-DB RP No. 591 of 2023

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petitioner has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record to review the order.

¶47

Learned CGSC has placed on record a copy of the Ministry of Textiles, Central Silk Board, Scientist Group 'A' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2013 and the Central Silk Board - Delegation of Disciplinary Powers to all the Directors and also to the Joint Directors, dated 02.07.2002. The appended Schedule makes it clear that, insofar as the Deputy Director / Scientist-C, the authority competent to impose penalty is, Member Secretary and the Appellate Authority is, Chairman. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention of the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction.

¶48

The other grounds urged by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is in the nature of re-appreciation of the petition under review jurisdiction. This Court would not sit as an Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the writ petition. Review would be permissible only when the aggrieved party is able to point out an error apparent on the face of the record. Thus, we

¶49