Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010133862024 2025:GAU-AS:1293 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./124/2024 FORCE NO 850872588 ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR/ GENERAL DUTY PRATAP CHANDRA NAYAK PRESENTLY POSTED AT 149BN,CRPF, JOYSAGAR, SIBSAGAR, ASSAM 786004 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI-01 2:THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI 11003 3:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NES CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE STONEY HAVEN BISHOP COTTON ROAD SHILLONG MEGALAYA 793001 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTER 9TH MILE AMERIGOG Page No.# 2/7 GUWAHATI ASSAM 781023 5:THE COMMANDANT 164 BATTALION CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (AT LOCATION) TO B Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R MAZUMDAR, MR. R DEKA,MS T WAPANGLA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., Linked Case : WP(C)/1755/2014 ROCE NO. 850872588 SHRI PRATAP CHANDRA NAYAK HEAD CONSTABLE / GD CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE GROUP CENTRE 9TH MILE GUWAHATI ASSAM VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS NEW DELHI-01 2:THE DIRECTOR GENEAL CRPF CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI-03 3:INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLIE NES CRPF STONEY HEAVEN Page No.# 3/7 BISHOP COTTON ROAD SHILLONG MEGHALAYA-01 4:THE DY. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CRPF GROUP CENTRE 9TH MILE AMERIGOG GHY-23 ASSAM 5:THE COMMANDANT 164 BATTALION CRPF AT LOCATION ------------ Advocate for : MR.H BEZBARUAH Advocate for : MR.S SARMA appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA and 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY ORDER 07.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned ASGI representing the Union of India. 2. The present review petition is preferred for review of the Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2021 passed in WP(C) 1755/2014. 3. By the aforesaid judgment, this Court negated the challenge made in the writ petition i.e. decline to direct the respondent authority to bring the petitioner on the Special Approved List AA/GD/06/2011 as per original seniority list and to promote him with retrospective effect ahead of his juniors. 4. In the judgment under review, this Court at paragraph 7 formulated Page No.# 4/7 that the determination of the writ petition revolves around the issue whether the stoppage of increment can be treated as major penalty or a minor penalty under the relevant Laws and Rules i.e. Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, and Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. While dealing with the issue, this Court in the aforesaid judgment under review at paragraph 12 held that the Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 shall not be applicable to the CRPF personnel. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10.12.2021, passed in WP(C)/1755/2014, a writ appeal being WA No. 243/2022, was filed and it was argued before the Division Bench that the petitioner failed to bring into the notice of this Court the provision of Rule 102 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, which clearly provides that in respect of the matters for which no provision is made under CRPF Rules 1955, they shall be the same as are for the time being applicable to other officers of Government of India. In view of the aforesaid submission, the Division Bench by order dated 20.06.2024, permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ appeal with a liberty to file a review application before this Court and accordingly, the present review petition is field. 6. Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the review petitioner argues that though he has taken many grounds, however, he shall confine his argument to the ground No. 2.6 and the ground No. 2.7, which are quoted herein below:- “2.6. For that it was not brought to the knowledge of the Hon’ble Court that there is a gap in the rules as regards classification of “minor” and “major” penalty. The provisions of Rule 102 of the CRPF Rules, 1955, which provided for application of Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, which are applicable to other officers of Corresponding status serving the government of India and there was no gap remaining in the CRPF Act, 1945 read with the CRPF Rules, 1955 as regards the categorization of Page No.# 5/7 punishments since, on the one hand, the Corresponding Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 provided for such categorization and on the other hand, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already classified the penalty in issue to be a minor penalty. In above view of the matter, it is humbly submitted that the judgment and order passed by this Hon’ble Court deserves a review. 2.7. for that it was not brought to the knowledge of the Hon’ble Court as per Rule 3(10) of the Central Civil Services (Class, Control and Appeal) Rules 1965, the rules would not apply to any person for whom special provision is made, in this case the CRPF Act and Rules. The CRPF Rules itself provided for the application of the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It is humbly stated that since the Establishment Manual of the CRPF was not a part of the pleadings, the petitioner was not put to notice that the same would be referred to while deciding the matter. It is humbly submitted that the judgment and order passed by this Hon’bel Court deserves a review. 7. The law is well settled that a review application is maintainable on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed, or the order was made. Secondly, such a review application shall be maintainable on account of such mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. 8. The material error, to exercise the power of review, must be manifest on the face of the order and would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness (Ref.. Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon -Vs- Union of India and Others reported in 1981 SCC (1) 168. 9. The error apparent on the face of the record shall mean an error that is self-evident and no process of reasoning is required to detect such error. Therefore, when an error is not self-evident and is required to be detected by the process of reasoning, such error cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record. 10. It is also equally well settled that while exercising review jurisdiction, a Court cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, Page No.# 6/7 even when two views are possible in a matter. 11. It is well settled that any other sufficient reasons shall mean “a reason sufficient on the grounds at least analogous to those specified in rule”. (Ref: Union of India –Vs- Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. reported in 2013 8 SCC 337.) 12. Now, coming to the case in hand, a bare perusal of the grounds of review pleaded and urged by the learned counsel, this Court is of the view that applicability of Rule 102 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, was not placed during the course of argument, nor this Court had occasion to deal with the applicability of Rule 102 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. It is important to note that, in the given facts of the present case, applicability of such provision of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 might have a bearing on the final outcome of the case as this Court concluded that CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, is not applicable in the present case, in terms of Rule 3(1) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Another question may arise whether Rule 11 (4) of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 shall be made applicable more particularly, the punishment prescribed under Section 11 of the CRPF Act, 1949 and the relevancy of Section 10(m) of the CRPF Act, 1949 inasmuch as admittedly there was no specific categorization whether stoppage of increment is a minor punishment or a major punishment. Therefore, the applicability of Rule 102 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 shall have a bearing on final outcome of the determination. That being the position, there might have been an impact of such provision on the decision taken in the judgment and order under review. 13. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that this review petition needs to be allowed. Accordingly this review petition stands allowed. The Judgment and Order dated 10.12.2021 passed in Page No.# 7/7 WP(C) 1755/2014 is hereby re-called and Registry shall restore the record to the original file and list this matter as per roster. JUDGE Comparing Assistant