Dismissed

Ram Babu Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC13 Feb 2015C. REV./501/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a review petition filed by a Sub Post Master. The petitioner sought review of an interim order setting aside a Tribunal order that had quashed his departmental punishment for misappropriation of funds. The Court held that no grounds for review existed as no new facts or errors were demonstrated. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed. No interim order or order as to costs. The interim order previously setting aside the Tribunal's order remains in force.

Ram Babu Singh Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Review No.501 of 2013 IN

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18550 of 2010

¶4

=========================================================== Ram Babu Singh, S/o Shree Shiv Paras Singh, Resident of Village- Jaitipur, Via-

¶5

Dighwara, District- Saran

¶6

.... .... Respondent-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Union of India through the Secretary- Cum- Director General, Department

¶9

of Post, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶10

The Chief Post Master General, Bihar Circle, Patna.

¶11

The Post Master General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur.

¶12

The Director of Postal Services, Northern Region, Office of Postmaster General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur.

¶13

The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Saran Postal Division, Chapra.

¶14

.... .... Petitioner- Respondent

¶15

=========================================================== Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. AJAY KUMAR, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr.

¶17

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

and

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-02-2015

¶21

This application is filed under Order 47, Rule-1

¶22

read with Section-114 of C.P.C., with a prayer to review the order dated 15.10.2011, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No.18550/10.

¶23

Patna High Court C. REV. No.501 of 2013 dt.13-02-2015

¶24

2/4

¶25

The petitioner is a Sub Post Master at Basantpur, Indian Postal Department. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by issuing a chargesheet dated 14.3.2006. It was alleged that the petitioner has withdrawn a sum of Rs.1,52,230.00 on 17.3.2005, though the actual necessity was hardly of about Rs.75,000.00 and the balance amount, when stored in a damaged almirah, has been stolen by the miscreants. It was alleged that the Department has incurred a loss to the extent of Rs.96,640.00. The petitioner submitted his explanation and, not satisfied with the same, the disciplinary authority issued the order of punishment dated 31.8.2006, imposing the penalty of recovery of Rs.64,428/- in equal monthly instalments of Rs.1500, except the last being of Rs.428/-.

¶26

Aggrieved by the order of punishment, the petitioner filed O.A. No.51/08 before the Patna Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. Through its order dated 28^th May, 2010, the Tribunal has set aside the order of punishment. The Department filed C.W.J.C. No.18550/10 challenging the order of the Tribunal. This Court allowed the writ petition through the order under review and has set aside the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶27

Heard Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the

¶28

Patna High Court C. REV. No.501 of 2013 dt.13-02-2015

¶29

3/4

¶30

petitioner, and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶31

For all practical purposes, the learned counsel for the petitioner has repeated the grounds that were urged in the O.A. as well as in the C.W.J.C. It is fairly well settled that the review is not a remedy equivalent to appeal, and it is only when the concerned party demonstrates that an important fact that has a direct bearing on the adjudication missed the consideration by the Court or when a binding precedent or relevant provision of law was not taken into account, that there exists a possibility for review.

¶32

In the instant case, it was not even pleaded by the petitioner that any irregularity has crept into the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of procedure. So far as the punishment is concerned, it was not even alleged that it is shockingly disproportionate. Still the Tribunal interfered with the order of punishment, just by making general observations. This Court took note of the fact that the Tribunal failed to maintain the distinction between the decision making process, on the one hand, and decision as such, on the other hand; and observed that the Tribunal interfered with the order of punishment, though no defect was pointed out in the decision making process. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to satisfy us as to what

¶33

Patna High Court C. REV. No.501 of 2013 dt.13-02-2015

¶34

4/4

¶35

serious infirmity has crept into the order passed by this court. We do not find any basis to review the order.

¶36

The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed

¶37

of.

¶38

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶39

(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)

¶40

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶41

K.C.jha/N.A.F.R. U

Ram Babu Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Babu Singh v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hare Ram Das and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

College of Comerce Staff Co-Op Vs Tthe Vice-Chancellor,Magadh Un

Babban Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Chandradeo Bhagat and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Vibhu Priyadarshi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Lakshmi Kant Sah Vs Jagdeo Ram and Ors.