Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, T.K. David, was an employee of Kuruppampady Service Co-operative Bank. He was suspended and a disciplinary inquiry was conducted, resulting in his dismissal by order dated 20.03.2003. The matter went through a series of litigations. The Cooperative Arbitration Court, by award dated 18.08.2010, modified the punishment of dismissal to reduction to a lower rank. Both the petitioner and the Bank appealed to the Cooperative Tribunal, which by judgment dated 16.08.2011 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement with terminal benefits. The petitioner challenged this before the Kerala High Court by way of a writ petition, which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge on 31.07.2013. The petitioner then filed a Writ Appeal No. 1313 of 2013 before the Division Bench, which was dismissed on 11.03.2015. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 24231 of 2015 before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 21.08.2015. A Review Petition and a Curative Petition filed by the petitioner in the Supreme Court were also dismissed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a Review Petition No. 805 of 2018 before the Kerala High Court seeking review of the Division Bench judgment dated 11.03.2015. The High Court dismissed the review petition on 06.02.2020, holding that there was no error apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner then filed the present Special Leave Petition challenging the order dismissing the review petition. The Supreme Court examined the maintainability of the SLP. It noted that the main judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.03.2015 had already been unsuccessfully challenged by the petitioner in an earlier SLP which was dismissed. The Court held that when the main judgment is not under challenge and cannot be challenged in the present SLP, no relief can be granted to the petitioner that would affect that judgment. Relying on Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Yashwant Singh Negi, the Court held that the SLP against the review order alone is not maintainable. The Court also noted that the High Court had dismissed the review petition on merits after considering the contentions. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Maintainability of SLP against review order - Where the main judgment of the High Court has been unsuccessfully challenged by an earlier special leave petition which was dismissed, a subsequent special leave petition challenging only the order rejecting a review petition is not maintainable, as the main judgment is not under challenge and no relief can be granted that would affect it (Paras 10-12). B) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Punishment - Co-operative Tribunal's power to modify punishment - The Co-operative Tribunal, in appeal, modified the punishment of reduction to lower rank imposed by the Arbitration Court to compulsory retirement, which was upheld by the High Court in writ appeal. The Supreme Court declined to interfere as the earlier SLP against the writ appeal judgment had been dismissed (Paras 2-3, 7-8). C) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The High Court, while dismissing the review petition, held that there was no mistake or omission amounting to an error apparent on the face of the record, as the Division Bench had consciously considered the conversion of punishment to compulsory retirement with sufficient reasoning (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a special leave petition challenging an order rejecting a review petition is maintainable when the main judgment of the High Court has already been unsuccessfully challenged by an earlier special leave petition and is not under challenge in the present petition.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, holding that it is not maintainable as the main judgment of the Division Bench dated 11.03.2015 is not under challenge and cannot be challenged in this SLP, and no relief can be granted that would affect that judgment. The Court also noted that the High Court had dismissed the review petition on merits after considering the contentions.
Law Points
- Maintainability of special leave petition against review order when main judgment not challenged
- Doctrine of merger
- Res judicata
- Scope of review jurisdiction
