Simply Because Judge Has Gone Wrong In Law No Grounds For Review, May Be A Ground For Appeal: J&K High Court

Dismissing a review petition filed by Pervez Ahmad Parra, who sought to overturn a previous court decision that upheld his termination from service Justice Sanjay Dhar has observed,

“Simply because a Judge has gone wrong in law, that is not a ground for review, though it may be a ground for appeal. Similarly, an erroneous view of law is no ground for review though it may be a ground for appeal. It seems that the petitioner in the guise of present review petition is trying to persuade this Court to rehear the case as if it is sitting in appeal over its own judgment, which is not permissible in law”

The case originated when Parra, a former Cashier at the Government Treasury challenged his termination after a prolonged absence from duty. Parra had taken leave in 1992 but overstayed for nearly 12 years, returning to his post only in 2004. He attributed his long absence to a medical condition, which he claimed was substantiated by medical certificates.

However, after an inquiry, which included a show-cause notice and a report from the appointed Enquiry Officer, the authorities found his explanations unsatisfactory. As a result, Parra was terminated from service in 2009.

He subsequently filed a writ petition challenging this termination on grounds that included a lack of formal charges, non-compliance with constitutional and procedural safeguards, and an assertion that his termination could not be applied retrospectively.

The writ court, however, dismissed his petition in May 2019, concluding that Parra's unauthorized absence from duty was not justified by the evidence presented.

Parra then sought a review of this judgment, arguing primarily that the writ court had overlooked a critical aspect of the Enquiry Officer's report, which had noted that Parra was mentally unsound during the period of his absence.

He contended that his termination was in violation of the Jammu and Kashmir Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1998, specifically Section 36, which provides protections for persons with disabilities. Parra also cited a Supreme Court ruling in Geetaben Ratilal Patel vs. District Primary Education Officer (2013) to support his claim.

Justice Dhar after carefully examining the arguments presented noted that the writ court had indeed considered the Enquiry Officer's findings and the provisions of the 1998 Act.

However, the writ court found that the petitioner had not produced any substantive evidence, such as a disability certificate from a Medical Board, that could have validated his claims under the Act. Furthermore, the judgment in Geetaben Ratilal Patel was deemed distinguishable due to factual differences.

“.. the petitioner has not placed on record any disability certificate issued by the Medical Board. What he has placed on record is a copy of the prescription and a copy of the certificate issued by a Psychiatrist which only show that the petitioner had been under treatment of the Psychiatrist. Whether the mental ailment with which the petitioner was suffering was of such a nature as would have rendered him incapable of joining his duties is not substantiated by any document placed on record before the Writ Court”, the court highlighted.

Observing that the review petition appeared to be an attempt by Parra to have the court re-examine the case as if it were an appeal, rather than a legitimate review the court reiterated that while an erroneous interpretation of law might be a ground for appeal, it does not warrant a review unless there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record.

Concluding that there were no grounds for review, Justice Dhar dismissed the petition, affirming the earlier judgment.

Case Title: PERVAZ AHMAD PARRA Vs STATE OF J&K & ORS

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 236

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment