' SHAH ABDUR RASHID (CHAIRMAN). -The applicant, Ghulam Muhammad, was dismissed from service on disciplinary grounds, and his appeals were dismissed by the departmental authorities as well as by the Tribunal. This application purporting to be under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, read with rule 22 of the Service Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1974, has been filed for obtaining a review of the order of the Tribunal, which has been passed on 22nd March, 1982.
2. The learned counsel for the applicant has argued that though a Full Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Ali v. Post Master-General (I), had held that it had no jurisdiction to review its own order, nevertheless that decision stands annulled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Anwar Fatima and 2 others v. Miss Aziz Begum and 7 others (2) {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1979 PLC (C. S.) 757 (2) 1981 SCM R 119 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' and that we should review our order of dismissing the applicant's appeal on the grounds stated in the application.
3. In the case of Muhammad Ali v, Post Master-General, the Chairman and three Members of the Tribunal unanimously held that the Tribunal had no power to review its own order on any grounds, and that the power conferred under rule 22 ihid, is limited to the correction of accidental or arithmetical errors only. The Tribunal was firmly of the el view that the jurisdiction for reviewing the order is analogous to hearing; of appeal, and it cannot be exercised unless specifically conferred by the Statute. One of the Members specifically referred to Article 175 (2) of the Constitution, which provided that no Court shall have any jurisdiction, save it is or may be conferred on it by the Constitution or by or under any law. The aforesaid provision of the Constitution has been protected by the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 (CMLA Order No, 1 of 1981) as well.
4. The observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Anwar Fatima v. Miss Aziz Begun: pertains to a diametrically different situation. In that case, the Tribunal had passed the order without proper service on one of the respondents, who was mainly affected by that order, and the Tribunal, in spite of being approached in this respect, refused to hear her on the ground that it had no power of review. In appeal, the Supreme Court held that the Tribunal had evidently erred not to set aside the order on the application of the affected person, as it was well settled that any order passed on the back of a person without affording him an opportunity of hearing would be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. It was further observed that in the circumstances of that case, "there hardly arose any question of exercising review jurisdiction in the matter by the Service Tribunal", for the simple reason that they had not viewed the case of the said person as she had not been heard.
5. From the ratio of the observation of the Supreme Court in the case relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant, it is evident that the Supreme Court never ruled that the Tribunal has any power of review. The decision of the Tribunal in the ease of Muhammad All v, Post Master General, though not referred to in the order of Supreme Court was indirectly confirmed by observing that the case which was before them, was not a case of review, but was a case of a person who had been condemned unheard. In fact, it was a case of setting side an ex parte, order on the application of a person who had prayed that the order was passed against her without proper service. The setting aside of an order which had been made ex parte is not a review. The power to set aside is ancillary to the power to pass an order like power to issue an injunction which, though not specifically conferred, can be invoked by the forum entrusted with making judicial or quasi- judicial decision. The decision of the Supreme Court, therefore, in no way goes counter to the decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Muhammad Ali v. Post-Master General.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant has taken advantage of the observation of the Supreme Court made in last but one para. In the case of Mrs. Anwar Fatima v. Miss Aziz Begum which is as follows :- "And the Tribunal had evidently erred not to set aside the order against her, for it is well settled that any order passed, on the back of a person, without affording him an opportunity of hearing, would be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect."
' The learned counsel urges that the Tribunal had passed its decision on no evidence, and that a decision based on no evidence is a decision without jurisdiction, and consequently of no avail. We are afraid; there is no substance in this contention. No doubt, the Courts exercising special jurisdiction of issuing writs can set aside an order which is based on no evidence, nevertheless it is for the court to decide whether the decision was based on no evidence. In the present case the question was not of no evidence, but was of the value of the evidence which had been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. Much stress was placed on the decision of the Special Judge acquitting the appellant and rejecting his judicial confession which he had earlier made before the Magistrate, and on which the Tribunal had relied. That confession might not be sufficient for proving the guilt of the applicant in a criminal case, but the criteria for examination of evidence in a departmental inquiry is quite different, where like other civil cases, only the weight of the evidence has to be taken into account, and a civil servant cannot claim exoneration, simply on the ground that on the standard of a criminal trial, his guilt has not been proved "beyond reasonable doubt".
7. In our view, there is no substance in this application for review not only for want of jurisdiction, but also on merits, and the same is dismissed in limine.