ORDER : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing as these are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi). 2. The common order dated 19.08.2025 passed in O.A No. OA/050/00151/2021 and O.A No. OA/050/00306/2021 is under challenge in W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 and W.P(S) No.497 of 2026 respectively. 3. The following prayers have been made in these writ petitions: In W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025: “That by the instant writ petition petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/Judgment passed in dated 19.08.2025 OA/ 050/ 00151/ 2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi); whereby and whereunder Original Application filed by the respondents has been allowed and learned tribunal has been pleased to quash and set aside order dated 25.02.2021 by which Petitioners herein have decided to review the TDM Dumka Order dated 09.03.1998 on the ground of collusion, forgery, malafides, conspiracy & fraud etc. and also petitioners herein was directed to grant all consequential benefits to the respondents herein/applicants to the OA as per the rules within a period of 3 months from the date of the order which is absolutely perverse both on law and facts. And/Or Issue such other writ(s) /order(S)/Rule(s)/Direction(S) as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing substantial justice to the Petitioners.” In W.P(S) No.497 of 2026: “That by the instant writ petition petitioners pray for issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing of order/Judgment dated 19.08.2025 passed in OA/050/00306/2021 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi); whereby and whereunder Original Application filed by the respondents has been allowed and learned tribunal has been pleased to quash and set aside order dated 04.09.2021 by which the applicants of the OA/050/00306/2021 / respondents herein have been directed to appear before review DPC on 22.09.2021 and also petitioners herein was directed to grant all consequential benefits to the respondents herein/applicants to the OA as per the rules within a period of 3 months from the date of the order which is absolutely perverse both on law and facts. And/Or Issue such other writ(s) /order(S)/Rule(s)/Direction(S) as your lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case for doing substantial justice to the Petitioners.” 4. Since both these writ petitions have been preferred against the common order and further similar issue has to be adjudicated in these writ petitions, therefore, this Court is delving upon the factual aspect of the W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 taking it as lead case. 5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions which are enumerated from the pleadings of the Original Applications reads as under: (i) The applicants (respondents herein) have been initially appointed a Casual Labour in between 1985 to 1988 and they were granted Temporary Status with effect from 09.03.1998 as per the directive of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as referred in the same Office Order in which the name of the applicants find place. (ii) While the applicants were working under Department, the Respondents (Petitioner herein) have issued order dated 20.01.1999 whereby the said order dated 09.03.1998 whereby temporary status was granted, has been kept in abeyance without any rhyme and reason. (iii) Thereafter the applicants have filed one Original Application being Original Application No.144 of 1999 challenging the said order dated 20.01.1999 which was allowed on 29.11.2001 whereby the said Order dated 20.01.1999 cancelling / keeping in abeyance the temporary Status granted to the Applicants has been set aside and the Respondents have been directed to reinstate the Applicants with liberty to enquire into the allegations of submitting forged certificates after giving appropriate opportunity to participate in the Enquiry and to take appropriate action in the light of Enquiry Report in accordance with law and in compliance thereof, the Applicants have been reinstated in service and subsequently the Respondents have issued one Letter dated 07.01.2002 directing the Applicants to submit their work diary and accordingly the Applicants have submitted their Work Diary on 16.01.2002 under clear receipt and thereafter they were reinstated in the service vide Order dated 25.01.2002 and thereafter the Respondents have conducted verification with their Work Diary which were found correct and genuine which can be seen from their Letter dated 08.07.2002. (iv) That it is further relevant to submit and state here that the Respondents herein have thereafter constituted Departmental Screening Committee (DPC) who met on 30.04.2002 and recommended for eventual regularization and in compliance thereto the Respondents have issued Office Order dated 11.07.2002 whereby and whereunder the Applicants have been regularized as Regular Majdoor i.e. against Group-"D" Post with effect from 06.02.2002 unconditionally in which the name of Applicants finds place. (v) That it is very relevant to submit here that in spite of the proper verification of documents and regularization order as referred to above, the Chief General Manager, BSNL, Jharkhand Circle has issued one Letter dated 31.12.2001 to TDM, Dumka to constitute one Enquiry Committee to enquire about the truth with respect to the Genuineness of the initial appointment of Applicants as casual labour in compliance to the order dated 29.11.2001 and thereafter the TDM, Dumka has constituted Three Men Committee who conducted detailed enquiry in the matter and submitted their Report holding that "Thus it is proved from the above fact and finding that the appointment of all 12 TSMs cannot be categorized as false appointment. Followed by the finding of enquiry committee report Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted on comprising of Sri R. Sahu, TDM, Dumka cum-Chairman, Sri M. Singh, DE (P) Deoghar, Member and Sri P.P. Sah, DE (A&P) 0/0 TDM, Dumka, Member. The DPC scrutinized the relevant records of all the 12 TSMs and recommended to be regularized as RM with effect from 06.02.2002. Based on the Enquiry Committee report all the TSMs were informed vide DE (A&P) 0/0 TDM, Dumka Letter No. E-71/ CAT Judgment Order / Pat/2001-02/16 to 27 dated 08.07.2002 for record verification. Further Shri P.P. Sah, DE (A&P)-officials were regularized against vacant posts w.e.f. 06.02.2002." (vi) After a lapse of 03 years, the Respondents have constituted another Committee for making enquiry on the same issue as per the said Order passed in the said Original Application No. 144 of 1999. It is stated that the Chairman of the new Committee has issued one Letter dated 15.10.2005 directing the Applicants to furnish required papers and in compliance thereto the Applicants have appeared before the said Committee on 28.10.2005 with required papers which can be seen from the proceeding dated 28.10.2005 signed by the Members. It is stated that the Chairman of the new Committee has issued one Letter dated 15.10.2005 directing the Applicants to furnish required papers and in compliance thereto the Applicants have appeared before the said Committee on 28.10.2005 with required papers which can be seen from the proceeding dated 28.10.2005 signed by the Members. It is stated that thereafter the Competent Authority i.e. CGMT has issued direction for closing the enquiry and in compliance there to, the TDM, Dumka has stopped the Enquiry on 02.03.2006. (vii) The Applicants while working continuously since the date of their eventual regularization up to 2010, they were deprived of their due promotions to the post of Telephone Mechanic whereas their juniors have been granted with the said promotional benefit which compel them to file various Original Applications for redressal of their grievances vide Original Application No. 838 of 2010, Original Application No. 347 of 2012, Original Application No. 783 of 2013, Original Application No. 157 of 2013, Original Application No. 158 of 2013, Original Application No. 71 of 2014 and Original Application No. 226 of 2014 which were allowed on 24.03.2015, 06.05.2015 and 08.01.2015 respectively in which it has been held that the Temporary Status granted to the Applicants vide Order dated 09.03.1998, regularization of applicants against Group-"D" Posts vide Order dated 11.07.2002 are quite legal and the Applicants are entitled to get the promotion to the post of Telephone Mechanic from the date of their juniors. (viii) In spite of the said orders the Respondents on some pretext or the other, did not implemented the said Orders, then the Applicants have filed Contempt Case No.31 and 32 of 2015 in which Order of personal appearance was issued. (ix) Thereafter, respondents have issued order of termination on 28.05.2015 on the same ground of procuring employment on the basis of forged casual labour working certificate against which the Applicants have filed cases vide Original Application No.424 of 2015 and OA 430 of 2015 in which vide order dated 09.06.2015 the termination Order was stayed. Thereafter the respondents have filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 11211 of 2015 against the said interim Order dated 09.06.2015 where their Writ Petition has been dismissed on 27.08.2015 and thereafter the Respondents have cancelled the said termination order dated 09.06.2015. Thereafter the respondents have filed Writ Petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court vide CWJC No. 11211 of 2015 against the said interim Order dated 09.06.2015 where their Writ Petition has been dismissed on 27.08.2015 and thereafter the Respondents have cancelled the said termination order dated 09.06.2015. (x) Thereafter on the same facts and allegation respondents have issued Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2016 after more than 25 years from the date of the appointment then the Applicants had filed Original Application No. 051/00335 of 2017 and Original Application No. 051/00132 of 2017. (xi) After hearing the parties, the Original Application No. 051/00335 of 2017 was allowed on 01.08.2017 and the said Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2016 was quashed against which the Respondents preferred writ petition before Hon'ble High Court, Jharkhand vide W.P(s). No.5032 of 2017 wherein Judgement / Order passed by in said Original Application No.051/00335 of 2017 was upheld as evident from Order paragraph No.20 of the Order dated 17.01.2018. (xii) The Respondents being aggrieved with the said order of High Court of Jharkhand, preferred Special Leave to petition (Civil) No.29396 of 2018 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India but the same has also been dismissed on 02.11.2018. (xiii) Similar to the above on 11.04.2018 in Original Application No.051/00132 of 2017 order was passed in which direction was passed to the Respondents to conduct a comprehensive Enquiry and initiate action against the Senior Officials guilty of omission and commission which has perpetuated the alleged fraud. (xiv) The Respondents were granted mandatory six months’ time for doing the same and till such action and punishment imposed against the Senior Officers and in the meanwhile the said Charge Sheet dated 29.12.2016 has been kept in abeyance with further direction that if aforesaid Enquiry and follow-up action is not taken against Senior Officials within six months the Charge Memorandum dated 29.12.2016 is deemed to be quashed and set aside. (xv) It is stated that the Enquiry against the Senior Officers has not been concluded within six months against Senior Officials, but the Respondents after expiry of six months period, filed one Miscellaneous Application No. 477 of 2018 for extension of time beyond six months to conclude the inquiry against the Senior Officials but since six months' time has already been expired, the said Application was dismissed. (xvi) In the meanwhile, respondents have implemented the order passed in OA 157 of 2013, OA 158 of 2013 and OA 71 of 2014 on 12.12.2018 whereby applicants have been granted the benefits of Promotion under NEPP, Presidential Order and promotion as TM. (xvii) Thereafter, respondents lodged one First Information Report on 14.02.2019 registered on 08.03.2019 being Deoghar P. S. Case No. 94 of 2019 under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code for the same allegation of procuring appointment on forged Working Certificate in which the Applicants moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar wherein they have been granted protection which was subsequently recalled on 22.05.2019. (xviii)Thereafter the Respondents have placed the Applicants under suspension vide Order dated 24.05.2019 on the basis of their said First Information Report and recalling of the protection Order by the learned Sessions Judge, Deoghar. After receipt of the suspension Order some of the Applicants have submitted Representation before the Respondents for revocation of the suspension Order but they have been suggested to first get bail and then move application for revocation of suspension Order and that being the reason the Applicants moved before the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court for grant of their anticipatory bail vide A.B.A. No. 3691 of 2019 and ?.?.?. ??.3690 of 2019 in which after perusal of the Orders so passed by the Division Bench of this High Court in W.P.(S) No. 5032 of 2017 upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide S.L.P.(C) No. 29396 of 2018, has granted anticipatory bail to the Applicants vide Orders dated 26.06.2019. (xix) After grant of anticipatory bail, the Applicants have submitted Representation on 29.06.2019, 01.07.2019 09.07.2019 followed by the Reminders before the Respondents for revocation of suspension Order and only on 28.10.2020, said suspension Order has been revoked but no arrears have been paid. Thereafter, respondents have commenced enquiry proceeding against some of the applicants on the basis of same charge sheet dated 29.12.2016 against which OA No.58 of 2019 has been filed and interim order was granted on 16.01.2019 and finally said OA has been allowed on 22.01.2020. (xx) Thereafter, the respondents had issued orders dated 03.03.2020 whereby they have decided to administrative review of the order dated 09.03.1998 and applicants have submitted their reply and also demanded legible copies but the same has not been supplied. (xx) Thereafter, the respondents had issued orders dated 03.03.2020 whereby they have decided to administrative review of the order dated 09.03.1998 and applicants have submitted their reply and also demanded legible copies but the same has not been supplied. (xxi) In the meanwhile, respondents have issued another order dated 25.02.2021 calling the applicants on 03.03.2021 for administrative review of the order dated 09.03.1998. (xxii) Hence the Applicants have got no efficacious remedy they had moved before the learned tribunal for redressal of their grievances by way of filing Application being O.A. No. OA/050/00151/2021. (xxiii) The applicants had taken ground before the learned tribunal that after conducting Enquiry and verification of records, the services of the Applicants have been regularized unconditionally vide said order dated 11.07.2002 hence any question concerning the appointment of the Applicants on the same basis cannot be questioned by the Respondents. (xxiv) The learned tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2025 after hearing both the parties has allowed the said application i.e. O.A. No. OA/050/00151/2021 and has quashed and set-aside the order dated 25.02.2021 by which the applicants were called on 03.03.2021 for administrative review of the order dated 09.03.1998. (xxv) Against the order dated 19.08.2025 the present writ petition has been filed. 6. It is evident from the factual aspect that altogether eleven employees who had been taken in the service, initially as a daily rated capacity, but subsequently they were regularized. Subsequent to the order of regularization, the respondent-authority, the writ petitioners herein, had decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the appointees who have been regularized on the ground of commission of fraud. The memo of charge was issued against all the eleven employees who have been regularized. The five applicants, who are the respondents in the W.P(S) No.6953 of 2025 have approached the learned Tribunal challenging the memorandum of charge by filing Original Application being O.A No.051/00335/2017. 7. Another set of employees, six in numbers, have preferred another Original Application being O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 8. The learned Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application being O.A No.051/00335/2017 by quashing the Charge Memo dated 29.12.2016 issued by the respondent having been instituted against the applicants of the said case. 7. Another set of employees, six in numbers, have preferred another Original Application being O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 8. The learned Tribunal has disposed of the Original Application being O.A No.051/00335/2017 by quashing the Charge Memo dated 29.12.2016 issued by the respondent having been instituted against the applicants of the said case. The said order dated 01.08.2017 passed in O.A No.051/00335/2017 had been carried by challenging the same by filing the writ petition being W.P(S) No.5032 of 2017 which was dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed by a co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court declining to interfered with the order dated 01.08.2017. 9. The writ petitioner-BSNL has challenged the said order dated 17.01.2018 passed in W.P(S) No.5032 of 2017 by filing a Special Leave to Appeal being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.11.2018. 10. Subsequent to the aforesaid Original Application being O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 preferred by six identically placed co-employees, who were the applicants in the said Original Application, the order was passed on 11.04.2018 and while disposing of the said Original Application the following order was passed by the learned Tribunal, for ready reference, the relevant paragraph-23 is being quoted hereunder: 23. Accordingly, the OA is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The respondents shall be at liberty to conduct a comprehensive enquiry and initiate action against the senior officials guilty of omission and commission which has perpetuated this alleged fraud. They shall do so within six months of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Till such time as the aforesaid enquiry as mentioned in para 23 of sub-para (i) is completed and action initiated, the charge memo dated 29.12.2015 (Annexure-A/25 series) shall be kept in abeyance. If the aforesaid enquiry and follow up action is not taken within six months of receipt of a copy of this order, the charge memo dated 29.12.2016 shall be deemed to be quashed and set aside. 11. The order dated 11.04.2018 has not been assailed even Higher Forum as has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in pursuance to the liberty so granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 an inquiry was directed to be conducted. 11. The order dated 11.04.2018 has not been assailed even Higher Forum as has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is the case of the writ petitioners that in pursuance to the liberty so granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 an inquiry was directed to be conducted. The fact finding has been arrived and the writ petitioners have taken a decision to forward the said report to the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short-CBI) for institution of an FIR but the CBI has refused to institute the FIR and has returned the entire file to the writ petitioner for taking action on its end. The writ petitioner has again taken decision to institute an FIR and accordingly one FIR has been instituted being Deoghar Town P.S Case No.94 of 2019 which is still pending before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction. 12. The writ petitioners in the meanwhile, has come out with the impugned notice 25.02.2021 and 04.09.2021 issued to all the applicants who were the applicants in O.A No. 051/00335/2017 and O.A No. OA/051/00132 /2017. 13. The said notices have been challenged by filing two sets of Original Applications being O.A No. OA/050/00151/2021 and O.A No. OA/050/00306/2021. 14. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 19.08.2025 has quashed the impugned notice dated 25.02.2021 and 04.09.2021 with a direction to grant all consequential benefits to the applicants as per the rule within a period of three months from the date of the order. 15. The said order 19.08.2025 is challenged herein. Submission of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner- BSNL: 16. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-BSNL has submitted that the learned Tribunal while allowing the Original Applications has not been considered the fact that the element of fraud has been found in course of inquiry which has been conducted in compliance to the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 17. Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner-BSNL has submitted that the learned Tribunal while allowing the Original Applications has not been considered the fact that the element of fraud has been found in course of inquiry which has been conducted in compliance to the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 17. It has been contended that in such a serious irregularity which has been surfaced in course of inquiry, that too, by virtue of the liberty granted vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in WP(S) No.5032 of 2017 which cannot be said to be in the garb of administrative review rather whatever power of the administrative review has been exercised, i.e., in pursuance to the order passed by the learned Tribunal as per the direction passed in paragraph-23 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017. 18. The ground has been taken that even in the admitted facts and circumstances, the memorandum of charge, even though common, has been quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal in the litigation preferred by one set of the employees as per the order dated 01.08.2017 passed in O.A No.051/00335/2017 but the learned Tribunal since has granted such liberty to go for the inquiry and, as such, the writ petitioner if proceeded by conducting an inquiry, the same cannot be said to be beyond jurisdiction and, hence, the order since has been passed on the backdrop of the fact that the writ petitioner has issued the notice beyond its jurisdiction is bad in the eyes of law. 19. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the order passed by the learned Tribunal is, therefore, not sustainable and it is fit to be quashed and set aside. Analysis 20. We have heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. 21. The case has been taken up at this stage and a detailed hearing has been given to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner on two dates, i.e., 04.02.2026 and today, i.e., 05.02.2026. 22. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner on merit has proceeded to examine the factual aspects, vis-a vis, the consequences of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on earlier occasion. 23. 22. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the writ petitioner on merit has proceeded to examine the factual aspects, vis-a vis, the consequences of the order passed by the learned Tribunal on earlier occasion. 23. The learned Tribunal while passing the order impugned in these two writ petitions, has given a finding on consideration of the issues as to whether the respondent-BSNL, the writ petitioner herein, is competent to conduct an administrative review of the matter once the judicial review has been made over the decision of the administrative officials. 24. This Court is to examine the consideration of the aforesaid issue which has been answered against the writ petitioner by the learned tribunal. 25. So far power of this Court is concerned to exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is to be exercised by the power of judicial review, since, this Court is not exercising the original jurisdiction as conferred as an extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather the power of judicial review is being exercised against the order passed by the Court of law being a Court of first instance as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India and Ors., (1997) 3 SCC 261. 26. The power which is to be exercised as per the position of law is to look into the legality and propriety of the order passed by the learned Tribunal only in a case error apparent on the face of the order or in a case of perversity of finding in exercise of power conferred under the power of judicial review as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph- 99 in the aforesaid judgment. The said paragraph is being referred as under: “ 99. In view of the reasoning adopted by us, we hold that clause 2(d) of Article 323-A and clause 3(d) of Article 323-B, to the extent they exclude the jurisdiction of the High Courts and the Supreme Court under Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution, are unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. Section 28 of the Act and the “exclusion of jurisdiction” clauses in all other legislations enacted under the aegis of Articles 323-A and 323-B would, to the same extent, be unconstitutional. The jurisdiction conferred upon the High Courts under Articles 226/227 and upon the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution is a part of the inviolable basic structure of our Constitution. While this jurisdiction cannot be ousted, other courts and Tribunals may perform a supplemental role in discharging the powers conferred by Articles 226/227 and 32 of the Constitution. The Tribunals created under Article 323-A and Article 323- B of the Constitution are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules. All decisions of these Tribunals will, however, be subject to scrutiny before a Division Bench of the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Tribunal concerned falls. The Tribunals will, nevertheless, continue to act like courts of first instance in respect of the areas of law for which they have been constituted. It will not, therefore, be open for litigants to directly approach the High Courts even in cases where they question the vires of statutory legislations (except where the legislation which creates the particular Tribunal is challenged) by overlooking the jurisdiction of the Tribunal concerned. Section 5(6) of the Act is valid and constitutional and is to be interpreted in the manner we have indicated. 27. The interpretation of the word “Judicial Review” is well settled which can only be exercised if there is an error apparent on the face of the order or the element of perversity is found to be there. The error apparent on the face of the order means that if the order appears on its face having with error, then only the power of judicial review is to be exercised. 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission vs. Abdul Halim, (2019) 18 SCC 39 , has held at paragraph-30 that the power of judicial review must be exercised by the Court after determining that the impugned is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record and not the same has been established by a process of reasoning. Paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under: "30. Paragraph-30 of the aforesaid judgment is being referred as under: "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 ] . ---." 29. In the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T. Nagappa and Anr., (1955) 1 SCR 250, their Lordship have held that the patent error in a decision can be corrected when it is manifested by the error apparent on the face of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder: "11. ... An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari but it must be a manifest error apparent on the face of the proceedings e.g. when it is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In other words, it is a patent error which can be corrected by certiorari but not a mere wrong decision. ...." 30. Thus, on the basis of the aforesaid settled legal position it is evident that the power of judicial review can be exercised, if error on the face of the order impugned, challenged under the Article 226 of Constitution of India, appears to be there. 31. We, since, are to consider the issue of administrative review and, as such, thought it proper to refer the position of law in which circumstances, the administrative authority is to exercise the power of administrative review. 31. We, since, are to consider the issue of administrative review and, as such, thought it proper to refer the position of law in which circumstances, the administrative authority is to exercise the power of administrative review. Law is well settled that the power of review by the administrative authority or the Court of Law except the Court having the extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the power of review can only be exercised if provided under the Statute otherwise the power of review cannot be exercised, particularly, for the administrative authority such power is not available to be exercised unless provide specifically in the Statute, reference in this regard is made to the judgment rendered in the case of “ Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors ” . reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437 wherein it has been held by laying down the provision at paragraph-12 regarding the proposition that the review in absence of statutory provision is not available to be exercised, the relevant paragraph of the said judgment is being quoted hereunder: “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless the statute/rules so permit, the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial orders. In absence of any provision in the Act granting an express power of review, it is manifest that a review could not be made and the order in review, if passed is ultra-vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.” 32. Adverting to the factual aspect of the present case, it is admitted case as per the material available on record and based upon that the argument has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-BSNL that the writ petitioner has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against the employees who have been regularized by taking them in regular establishment of the writ petitioner- BSNL. As per the writ petitioner, their regularization was nothing but a fraud. Memorandum of charge has been issued against all the employees who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal levelling therein the allegation of fraud in getting the order of their regularization. 33. The applicants/the employees, have preferred two Original Applications, five of them have preferred O.A No.051/00335/2017 and six were the applicants in O.A No.051/00132/2017. Memorandum of charge has been issued against all the employees who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal levelling therein the allegation of fraud in getting the order of their regularization. 33. The applicants/the employees, have preferred two Original Applications, five of them have preferred O.A No.051/00335/2017 and six were the applicants in O.A No.051/00132/2017. The learned Tribunal has disposed of O.A No.051/00335/2017 by quashing and setting aside the memorandum of charge, as would be evident from the operative part which is being quoted hereinabove. 34. The said order passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A No.051/00335/2017 has been upheld by this Court vide order dated 17.01.2018 passed in W.P(S) No.5032 of 2017 against which the writ petitioner-BSNL had preferred a Special Leave to Appeal being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018 which has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dated 02.11.2018. Therefore, the order passed so far as direction of quashing the memorandum of charge passed in O.A No. 051/00335/2017 has attained its finality. 35. The learned Tribunal has taken note about the aforesaid fact, which according to our considered view cannot be said to suffer from an error, since, the quashing of the memorandum of charge issued against the five employees who are the applicants in O.A No. 051/00335/2017 has attained its finality after dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018, since, the writ petitioner-BSNL has not chosen to file review thereafter. 36. However, in the second Original Application being O.A No.051/00132/2017 a different direction was passed as available at paragraph-23 thereof, which has been quoted hereinabove. 37. It is, thus, evident from the order dated 11.04.2018 that the learned Tribunal has kept the memorandum of charge in abeyance by granting liberty to conduct a comprehensive enquiry and initiate action against the “senior officials” guilty of omission and commission which has perpetuated this alleged fraud to be completed within six months of receipt of a copy of the order and till the order of six months the memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 has been kept in abeyance. 38. The question of conducting a comprehensive inquiry and initiation of action and during the aforesaid period the memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 was kept in abeyance was ought to have been acted upon by the writ petitioner herein. 39. 38. The question of conducting a comprehensive inquiry and initiation of action and during the aforesaid period the memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 was kept in abeyance was ought to have been acted upon by the writ petitioner herein. 39. It is admitted case of the writ petitioner that they have conducted inquiry and certain irregularities have been found and, hence, the entire inquiry report was forwarded to the CBI for further necessary action. It is further admitted case of the writ petitioner that the CBI has decided not to institute an FIR and again relegated the matter to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner thereafter has instituted FIR being Deoghar Town PS Case No.94 of 2019. 40. It has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that the said criminal case is still pending before the competent Court of criminal jurisdiction. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has again issued notice upon the employees/applicants to participate in the inquiry which have been challenged by filing two Original Applications being O.A No. 051/00335/2017 and O.A No.051/00132/2017. 41. The learned Tribunal has quashed the notices with a direction to release all consequential benefits, the proprietary of the said order is under consideration in these two writ petitions. 42. The fact which is not in dispute rather admitted by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner also that the learned Tribunal while quashing the notices has taken note of the fact that no power is conferred upon the administrative authority to exercise the power of administrative review. Such reasoning has been recorded on backdrop of the fact that when the memorandum of charge has already been quashed by the learned Tribunal which has attained finality after dismissal of the Special Leave Petition being Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s):29396 of 2018 vide order dated 02.11.2018, then it was not available for the writ petitioner to again call upon the employees by issuing notice to participate in disciplinary inquiry. 43. The fact is also not in dispute that memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 containing the imputation therein were identical against all the employees. 43. The fact is also not in dispute that memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 containing the imputation therein were identical against all the employees. When one set of memorandum of charge issued against one set of the employees have already been quashed and set aside which also attained finality but in the second set of litigation, i.e., O.A No.051/00132/2017 the order has been passed without touching the issue of imputation as was alleged against the employees, rather liberty only was granted to conduct an inquiry to consider the illegality which was committed by the officials who have perpetuated the alleged fraud. The said observation passed by the learned Tribunal in O.A No.051/00132/2017 is, therefore, clarified the position that the learned Tribunal while passing the order has not granted liberty to the writ petitioner to also conduct an inquiry and alleged irregularity said to be committed by one or the other employees, keeping the fact into consideration that the memorandum of charge has already been quashed and set aside by the learned Tribunal which was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as also by the Hon’ble Apex Court by dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal preferred against the said order. 44. The question of issuance of notice, therefore, has rightly been taken note of by the learned Tribunal that it is nothing but reviewing the decision taken by the Court of Law in the administrative side. 45. We are not concerned with respect to the culpability said to be committed by the officials as per the liberty granted vide order dated 11.04.2018 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017, since, the officials are not before the learned Tribunal, rather the applicants/employees were before the learned Tribunal and the writ petitioner now has instituted FIR against the officials based upon the findings surfaced in course of inquiry said to be preliminary in nature in view of the liberty granted by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 11.04.2018. 46. The question of issuance of notice is, therefore, agitated by the employees/applicants before the learned Tribunal. The memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 has already been quashed and set aside as also attained its finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, then where is the question and where is the authority having with the writ petitioner to again issue notice against the employees to participate in the inquiry. 47. The memorandum of charge dated 29.12.2016 has already been quashed and set aside as also attained its finality upto the Hon’ble Apex Court after dismissal of Special Leave to Appeal, then where is the question and where is the authority having with the writ petitioner to again issue notice against the employees to participate in the inquiry. 47. The decision based upon the same set of charge has already been quashed and set aside by quashing the memorandum of charge itself and even in the second set of Original Application being O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 no such liberty was granted by the learned Tribunal to initiate a fresh inquiry against the employees which cannot be, since, we are living in the era of judicial discipline and if the Forum has passed an order it is to be given respect for the purpose of following the principle of judicial discipline and that has been followed by the learned Tribunal while passing the order dated 11.04.2018 in O.A No. OA/051/00132/2017 and that is the reason the liberty only was granted to look into the element of fraud, if committed by the officials having no word granting liberty to again initiate an inquiry against the employees. But even then, the writ petitioner has issued notice to the employees to participate in the inquiry. 48. The law is well settled that once the memorandum of charge has been quashed, the entire departmental proceeding taken by virtue of the decision is also said to go into the nullity and it is not available for the disciplinary authority to again call upon the employees to participate in the inquiry. 49. The learned Tribunal, in the aforesaid pretext, has formulated the issues of the administrative review on consideration of the fact that once the memorandum of charge itself has been quashed and set aside by the Court of Law, then it cannot be reviewed by the administrative authority by taking decision in administrative side as has been taken by the writ petitioner by issuing notice to the employees to participate in the inquiry. 50. 50. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the view that we are not found any error apparent on the face of the order or even no element of perversity and as such we decline to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal and, accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. 51. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.