AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.A. No. 391 of 2024 & RVWPET No. 266 of 2024
Savitri Ratho, J This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the impugned order dated 11.08.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 23780 of 2022 by this Court. The Writ Petition had been filed by the petitioner challenging the final order of punishment dated 06.02.2019 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and the order dated 16.08.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition), by which order the appeal filed against the order dated 06.02.2019, by the Petitioner had been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. On 11.08.2023, this Court modified the punishment relating to suspension and directed that the period of suspension be treated as dies non but without break in service.
BACKGROUNDS FACTS
The Petitioner was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding on the charge that he had unauthorizedly remained absent from duties in the night of 09.09.2017 leaving the Court and Office of the Nayadhikari, Gram Nayalaya, Semiliguda and proceeded to Koraput without permission of the immediate authority, and also for failing to maintain absolute integrity, decorum of conduct and devotion to duty. These misconducts are covered under Rule 3 of the Orissa Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1959. There was an inquiry where the Petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and he denied the charge. The inquiring authority returned the finding that the charge has been proved against the Petitioner. The disciplinary authority, accepted the findings of the inquiring authority and by order dated 06.02.2019, (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), imposed the penalty as under:
“(1)Five annul increments be withheld with cumulative effect;
(ii)The period of suspension be treated as such;
(iii)The result of this Disciplinary Proceedings be taken into account, in case of any Disciplinary Proceeding initiated in future as well as proceedings pending against the Delinquent at present.
(iv)The absence from duties on 09.09.2017 by the delinquent be treated as unauthorized.”
Challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner filed an appeal, which was dismissed and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority confirmed. The decision was communicated to the petitioner on 16.08.2022 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition).
The Petitioner challenged the order of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in W.P.(C) No. 23780 of 2022.
This Court found that on the ground of proportionality, the penalty requires modification and by order dated 11.08.2023 disposed of the writ petition, modifying the penalty so far as it related to the period of suspension as under:-
“(ii)The period of suspension be treated dies non but without break in service.”
This review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 11.08.2023.
DELAY
The Stamp Reporter has pointed out a delay of 407 days in filing the Review Petition. I.A. No.391 of 2024 has been filed for condonation of the delay in filing the Review Petition.
Mr. S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that due to financial crunch the petitioner was not able to file the present Review petition before this Court in time. After arranging the funds the present Review Petition was filed, for which delay caused may be condoned in the interest of justice. In the I.A. for condonation of delay, it has been averred that the petitioner had filed SLP No. 23263 of 2023 before the Supreme Court. But date of disposal has not been mentioned nor has copy of the order annexed to the interim application on the Review Petition. We are therefore of the view that the delay is inordinate and sufficient cause has not been shown to condone the delay. But considering the submission of the learned counsel that the Petitioner has a good case on merit for review of the judgment, we have heard his submissions.
SUBMISSIONS
Mr. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the penalty regarding suspension is disproportionate to the charges against him. As the disciplinary proceeding remained pending for a long time, unless it is treated as period on duty, the petitioner will suffer huge financial loss. The Appellate Authority did not should have treated the period of suspension as on duty as the petitioner was attending office during that period in connection with another disciplinary proceeding, but he did not consider the appeal in its proper perspective and this ground is not available in the review petition, but learned counsel for the Petitioner stated that an additional affidavit has been filed in the review petition which supports such submission. Mr. S.K. Sahu, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies on the decision of Supreme Court in case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Now Known as Khoday India ltd) and Ors vs. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., Kollegal (Under Liquidation) Represented by the Liquidator: 2019 (4) SCC 376, in support of his submissions, that a case is made out for review.
Mr. Swain, learned Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite Parties submits that this review petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the Petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for condoning the delay and has failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of any new and important matter, or any other sufficient ground warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction of this Court.
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
The relevant portion of the decision in Khoday Distilleries Ltd (supra), is extracted below:-
“(vii)On an appeal having been preferred or a petition seeking leave to appeal having been converted into an appeal before the Supreme Court the jurisdiction of High Court to entertain a review petition is lost thereafter as provided by sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC.”
XXX XXX XXX
“….. In the instant case, since special leave petition was dismissed in limine without giving any reasons, the review petition filed by the appellant in the High Court would be maintainable and should have been decided on merits. Order dated November 12, 2008 passed by the High Court is accordingly set aside and matter is remanded back to the High Court for deciding the review petition on merits. Civil Appeal disposed of accordingly.”
In the case of Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna and another: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, the Supreme Court has reiterated the principles governing the power of review as under:
“17.Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. (Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1954) 2 SCC 881 : (1955) 1 SCR 1104) Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. (T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, (1954) 1 SCC 905 : AIR 1954 SC 440.) An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. (Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137.)
17.3Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories. (Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) 2 SCC 42 : AIR 1954 SC 526.”
Relying on the decision in Malleeswari (supra), this Court in the case of Kishore Biswal vs. Union of India and others (Review Petition No. 83 of 2025, decided on 30.01.2026), has held as follows:-
“The principles governing exercise of the power of review is no longer res integra. It is a well settled principle that the scope of review is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matter which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason analogous to the other two reasons.”
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Although it has been stated in paragraph 19 of the review petition that, the petitioner had filed SLP(C) No. 23268 of 2023 challenging the order of the High Court and in paragraph 20 that the SLP was dismissed, the order of the Supreme Court has also not been annexed. The petitioner has on the other hand, annexed copy of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries (supra). We therefore presume that the SLP preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed in limine for which we have thought it fit in the interest of justice to entertain this Review Petition.
As discussed above and held in a catena of decisions, the scope of review is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important matters which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, or for any other sufficient reason analogous to the other two reasons.
The grounds in the writ petition have been reiterated in the Review Petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record of order dated 11.08.2023 which is sought to be reviewed. It is also not his case that there has been discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which despite the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge earlier, for which he could not produce it before this Court.
Keeping the principles governing review jurisdiction in mind and after going through the order in W.P.(C) No. 23780 of 2022 passed by this Court and the grounds in the review petition as well as the additional affidavit and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are not satisfied that a case is made out for review of the order passed in W.P.(C) No.23780 of 2022.
Consequently I.A. No. 391 of 2024 and the Review Petition, being bereft of merit, stand dismissed, but with no order as to costs.