ABDUL SALAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner, now in review, desires a second, and bigger, bite of the cherry. Matters urged in course of the writ proceedings, or those that ought to have been urged then, or those that are claimed to have been urged but were not noticed, have been sought to be agitated afresh.

(2.) The petitioner, a policeman who has been disciplined for his absence without justifiable cause, seeks to reopen the writ petition on three counts, though the merits of the entire matter have been put forth. It is suggested that the order under review did not notice the three major grounds taken in challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal: that the chargesheet issued was vague in that it indicated the beginning of the period of absence but did not disclose the end date; that the notice issued by disciplinary authority required the petitioner only to deal with the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted on him and not the report of the Inquiry Officer; and, that despite the Tribunal and this Court having found some justification meriting further inquiry into a part of the period of the petitioner's absence, the quantum of punishment has not been reduced consequent thereupon.

(3.) In course of addressing such matters, we have been reminded of the power that inheres in every Court, particularly in a Court of Record, to correct any mistake in its order if such mistake results in manifest miscarriage of justice. Unimpeachable authorities have been cited in support of the contention that if matters were urged but were not noticed in the order, it is only that Court to which a party has to return and not carry the matters unnoticed to the appellate forum. Non-consideration of material germane to the issues raised, we are reminded, amount to error apparent on the face of the record.