Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anand Prabhakar Joshi, a former employee of the Bank of Maharashtra, filed a second review petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of the judgment in Second Appeal No. 181 of 2018, which had dismissed his appeal against concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated for unauthorized absence from service between 21st August 1994 and 14th September 1995. The courts below found that his absence from 1st October 1994 to 14th September 1995 was unauthorized, as his application for voluntary retirement was not accepted by the bank. The petitioner contended that he was entitled to voluntary retirement under a settlement with the unions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, relying on an Indian Banks Association circular dated 4th January 1996. However, the court noted that the voluntary retirement scheme was not in force at the relevant time. The first review petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 5th October 2020. In the second review petition, the petitioner argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record, but the court found that the petition merely sought re-agitation of issues already decided. The court held that a second review petition is not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-hear the matter. The court also noted that the petitioner failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the second review petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Second Review Petition - Maintainability - The petitioner filed a second review petition after dismissal of his first review petition. The court held that a second review is not maintainable as the review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided. The petitioner failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 1-13)
B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Unauthorized Absence - The petitioner, a bank employee, was found guilty of unauthorized absence from 1st October 1994 to 14th September 1995. The courts below concurrently held that his absence was not authorized and that his claim of voluntary retirement was not accepted. The High Court found no error in the concurrent findings. (Paras 3-5)
C) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Settlement - Voluntary Retirement Scheme - The petitioner relied on an Indian Banks Association circular dated 4th January 1996 to claim voluntary retirement. The court noted that the scheme was not in force at the relevant time and the settlement was not binding on the bank in the absence of adoption. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a second review petition is maintainable and whether any error apparent on the face of the record exists to warrant review of the judgment in Second Appeal No. 181 of 2018.
Final Decision
The second review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Second review petition not maintainable
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- error apparent on the face of the record
- review jurisdiction limited
- no fresh grounds
Case Details
2022 LawText (BOM) (07) 80
Second Review Petition No. 3 of 2022 in Second Appeal No. 181 of 2018
Mr. Anand Prabhakar Joshi (party in person), Mr. Dhananjay Bhanage for the Respondent – Bank
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Second review petition against dismissal of first review petition and judgment in second appeal in a service matter involving disciplinary proceedings for unauthorized absence.
Remedy Sought
Review of the judgment in Second Appeal No. 181 of 2018 and setting aside of the concurrent findings of the courts below.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the earlier judgments and that his voluntary retirement application was wrongly rejected.
Previous Decisions
The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to the disciplinary proceedings. The first review petition (No. 3119 of 2020) was dismissed on 5th October 2020.
Issues
Whether a second review petition is maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment in Second Appeal No. 181 of 2018?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the voluntary retirement scheme was binding on the bank under a settlement with unions under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and that his absence was authorized.
The respondent bank contended that the voluntary retirement scheme was not in force and that the petitioner's absence was unauthorized, and the review petition was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
A second review petition is not maintainable as the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided. The petitioner failed to show any such error.
Judgment Excerpts
Before adverting to the legal aspect as to whether second review is tenable in the given facts and circumstances, it would be expedient to briefly consider the background history of the case.
The petitioner was an employee of the respondent-bank. A disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on the ground of unauthorized absence from the service between 21st August, 1994 to 14th September, 1995, came to be unsuccessfully challenged by him before the Trial and the First Appellate Court.
The petitioner’s case before the Enquiry Officer as well as the Courts below was that he was entitled to voluntary retirement from the service w.e.f. 1st October, 1994 and that his application seeking voluntary retirement was not accepted by the respondent-employer on the ground that the voluntary retirement was not in force.
Procedural History
The petitioner was an employee of the Bank of Maharashtra. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for unauthorized absence. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed his challenge. He filed Second Appeal No. 181 of 2018, which was dismissed. He then filed a first review petition (No. 3119 of 2020), which was dismissed on 5th October 2020. Thereafter, he filed the present second review petition (No. 3 of 2022), which was dismissed on 15th July 2022.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947:
