Sarala B v. The Chief General Manager Telecommunication, BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN** **WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JULY 2017/28TH ASHADHA, 1939** **RP.No. 391 of 2017 () IN OP (CAT).189/2016 -------------------------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP (CAT) 189/2016 DATED 12-07-2016 --------------** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/PETITIONER :-** **-------------------------------** - **SARALA B, AGED 59 YEARS, D/O. BHARGAVI, MAPOTTIL KIZHAKKETHIL, MUTTOM P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA – 690 511 WORKED IN THE POST OF SR.TOA, OFFICE OF THE SDEP, BSNL, MANNAR.** **BY SMT.SARALA.B (PARTY IN PERSON)** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS :-** **--------------------------** **1. THE CHIER GENERAL MANAGER TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695 001.** **2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN.) OFFICE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOMMUNICATION, BSNL, ALAPPUZHA – 688 001.** **3. THE DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, TELECOM, BSNL, MAVELIKKARA, ALAPPUZHA, PIN – 690 101.** **4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL ENGINEER PHONES, BSNL, MANNAR, ALAPPUZHA. BY SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP, SC** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19-07-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **jvt** ## **P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JJ. ----------------------------------------------** ## **R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -----------------------------------------------Dated this the 19[th] day of July 2015** ## **O R D E R** ## **Anil K. Narendran, J.** This review petition is filed seeking for an order to review the judgment of this Court dated 12.07.2016 in O.P.(CAT)No.189/2016. The review petition is accompanied by C.M.Appln.No.173/2017, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for an order to condone the delay of 213 days in filing the review petition. 2. The review petitioner, who was working in the post of Sr.Telecom Office Assistant in the office of the 4[th] respondent at Mannar, is the applicant in O.A.No.405/2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. In the said O.A. she has sought for an order to set aside Annexures A4 and A9 orders dated 04.01.2012 and 10.05.2011 respectively and to direct the 1[st] respondent to consider Annexure A1 complaint afresh, after affording her an opportunity of being heard. She has also sought for an order directing the 1[st] respondent to regularise her period of suspension from 10.05.2011 to 18.12.2011 and to provide her salary and other consequential benefits. R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 2 :- 3. The review petitioner, while working as Sr.Telecom Office Assistant in the office of the 4[th] respondent at Mannar, submitted Annexure A1 representation before the 1[st] respondent, complaining about the harassment meted out to her at workplace by the 2[nd] and 3[rd] respondents. By Annexure A2 order in O.A.No.539/2011, the Tribunal directed the 1[st] respondent to consider her grievance and intimate the nature of action, if any, within a time limit. The review petitioner was also directed to submit a complaint to the Chairperson of the Committee for Prevention of Sexual Harassment at Workplace. The 1[st] respondent by Annexure A4 order dated 04.01.2012 rejected Annexure A1 representation as devoid of merit. In Annexure A4 order, it has also been stated that by Annexure A9 order dated 10.05.2011 of the 3[rd] respondent, the review petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect. 4. Before the Tribunal, relying on Annexures A5 to A8, the review petitioner contended that the findings in para.5 of Annexure A4 order are legally unsustainable and that she was illegally placed under suspension by Annexure A9 order dated 10.05.2011, which was later revoked by Annexure A15 order dated 05.12.2011. Relying on Annexures A11 to A14 and A16 series, the review petitioner contended further that, the findings in paras.6 to 8 of Annexure A4 order are R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 3 :- legally unsustainable. 5. Before the Tribunal, the reliefs sought for in the O.A. were opposed by the respondents by filing Ext.P2 reply and the petitioner filed Ext.P3 rejoinder. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal rejected the O.A. by Ext.P4 order dated 10.10.2012. Para.5 of the said order reads thus; “5. The applicant's grievances about denial of promotion and transfer on allotment of quarters etc., have been the subject matter of O.A.No.593 of 2011. The same cannot be raised again in this O.A. As regards the impugned order there was no specific mention in the direction given by this Tribunal to give the applicant a hearing. If at all she wanted an opportunity of being heard she could have very well approached the respondents. There is no merit in the contention of the applicant that the Divisional Engineer was not empowered to place her under suspension. Regularisation of the period of suspension with effect from 10.05.2011 to 18.01.2011 and payment of salary and the other consequential benefits to the applicant would arise only after completion of the departmental proceedings against her. The applicant has not controverted the submission of the respondents that Annexures A7, A11 and A12 are fabricated. We do not find any merit in the contentions of the applicant. Accordingly, the Original Application is dismissed. Taking a lenient view no cost is imposed on the applicant.” 6. Feeling aggrieved by Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal, the review petitioner approached this Court in O.P.(CAT)No.189/2016, an R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 4 :- original petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court found that, the challenge made in the original petition against Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal is highly belated, which cannot be entertained. Accordingly, this Court dismissed the original petition by the judgment dated 12.7.2016. Paras.5 and 6 of the said judgment read thus; “5. We notice that though Ext.P4 order of the Tribunal is one dated 10.10.2012, the present Original Petition is filed only on 04.08.2015. The reasons stated in Para.14 of the Original Petition as to the delay in approaching this Court, reads as follows: “14. The petitioner immediately after passing of Exhibit P4 tried to get the necessary documents from the custody of the respondents to establish the falsity of the stand of the respondents. The information provided by the Dy. General Manager (P&A) & CPIO, Alappuzha dated 09.03.2015 is produced herewith and marked as Exhibit P5. Because of the hostile attitude of the respondents petitioner found difficult to get the necessary documents and on that reasons there occurred some delay in filing the above writ and the petitioner may be pardoned for that delay as she is not at all responsible to occur that delay.” 6. As discernible from Ext.P5 communication issued by the Dy. General Manager,(P&A)&CPIO, Office of the General Manager, Telecom District, Alappuzha, the applicant made an application R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 5 :- under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 18.02.2015, based on which the information contained in Ext.P5 has been made available to her on 09.03.2015. As discernible from Ext.P5, in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the applicant, she was imposed with the penalty of compulsory retirement vide order dated 31.10.2012 with full pensionary benefits. The aforesaid document will not in any manner explain the inordinate delay of nearly 3 years on the part of the applicant in challenging Ext.P4 order dated 10.10.2012 before this Court. In that view of the matter, the challenge made in this Original Petition against Ext.P4 order passed by the Tribunal is highly belated, which cannot be entertained. In the result, this Original Petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.” 7. Now, in this review petition filed with a delay of 213 days, the review petitioner is seeking for a review of the above said judgment of this Court, by virtually reiterating the grounds already raised in O.P.(CAT)No.189/2016. 8. Heard the review petitioner, who appeared in-person. 9. In **Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of** **Andra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1372)** the Apex Court held that, review is, by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 ## -: 6 :- 10. In **Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997 (8) SCC 715)** the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 held that, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 11. Later, in **Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2006 (3) SCC 224)** the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. 12. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code is very limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the judgment does not call for review. R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 7 :- Further, whilst exercising such power of review, the Court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code and that the limits within which the Courts can exercise the power of review have been well settled in a catena of decisions. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, none of the grounds raised in this review petition which are nothing but reiteration of the grounds raised in the original petition fall within the ambit and scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. 13. As we have already noticed, this review petition is filed along with C.M.Appln.No.173/2017, an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 seeking for an order to condone the delay of 213 days in filing the review petition. 14. This review petition challenging the judgment of this Court dated 12.7.2016 in O.P.(CAT) No.189/2016 is filed only on 11.4.2017. Going by the averments in the affidavit accompanying to C.M.Appln. No.173/2017, the time limit for filing review petition expired on 12.9.2016. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the review petitioner has stated that as she was under the treatment for rheumatic pain on her both legs, she could not come to Ernakulam to get the certified copy of the judgment. She met her counsel on the 2[nd] week of March, who handed over the certified copy of the judgment along with case R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 8 :- bundle. On going through the judgment and the case file, she found it necessary to file a review petition. As she has no money to pay the fees, she decided to file a review petition as party-in-person. 15. In **Esha Bhattacharjee v. Raghunathpur Nafar Academy (2013 (12) SCC 649)** the Apex Court summarised the principles applicable while dealing with an application for condonation of delay. Paras. 21 and 22 of the judgment read thus; "21. From the aforesaid authorities the principles that can broadly be culled out are: 21.1.(i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice-oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the Courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. 21.2.(ii) The terms "sufficient cause" should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. 21.2.(iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. 21.4.(iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate causation of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. 21.5.(v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. 21.6.(vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 9 :- should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the Courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7.(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8.(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9.(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the Courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10.(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such a litigation. 21.11.(xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. 21.12.(xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinised and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. 21.13.(xiii) The State or a public body or an entity re-presenting R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 ## -: 10 :- a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude. 22. To the aforesaid principles we may add some more guidelines taking note of the present day scenario. They are: 22.1.(a) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a half hazard manner harbouring the notion that the Courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. 22.2.(b) An application for condonation of delay should not be dealt with in a routine manner on the base of individual philosophy which is basically subjective. 22.3.(c) Though no precise formula can be laid down regard being had to the concept of judicial discretion, yet a conscious effort for achieving consistency and collegiality of the adjudicatory system should be made as that is the ultimate institutional motto. 22.4.(d) The increasing tendency to perceive delay as a nonserious matter and, hence, lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a non-chalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, within legal parameters." 16. A reading of the affidavit in support of the application for condonation of delay would show that, the said affidavit has been drafted in a casual manner harbouring the notion that the Courts are required to condone delay on the bedrock of the principle that adjudication of a lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system. Though, the expression 'sufficient cause' employed by the R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 11 :- legislature in Section 5 of the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice, as held by the Apex Court in **Esha Bhattacharjee's case (supra)** , lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. In the said decision, the Apex Court has stated in categorical terms that, there is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 17. It is well settled that, the Law of Limitation is founded on public policy to ensure that the parties to a litigation do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek legal remedy without delay. In an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court has to condone the delay if sufficient cause is shown. Adopting a liberal approach in condoning the delay is one of the guiding principles, but such liberal approach cannot be equated with a licence to approach the Court-atwill. The acts of negligence or inaction on the part of a litigant do not R.P. No.391 of 2017 in O.P.(CAT) No.189 of 2016 & C.M. Appln. No.173 of 2017 -: 12 :- constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Therefore, in the matter of condonation of delay, sufficient cause is required to be shown thereby explaining the sequence of events and the circumstances that led to the delay. In the instant case, same is absent. The reasons stated in the affidavit accompanying to C.M.Appln.No.173/2017 cannot be termed as a sufficient cause for condonation of the inordinate delay of 213 days in filing the above review petition. In the result, the C.M.Appln.No.173/2017 fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, R.P.No.391/2017 stands dismissed. No order as to costs. **Sd/P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **Sd/ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE** //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Jvt/19.7.2017