The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.

ORDER :

Ramesh Sinha, C.J.

1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by this Court in WA No.184 of 2025, whereby the writ appeal filed by the review petitioner was dismissed.

2. The review petitioner filed a WPS No. 3492 of 2018 challenging the order dated 02.04.2018 and 18.09.2017, passed by Commissioner, Surguja division, place Ambikapur and Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, whereby the petitioner was held guilty in the departmental enquiry and penalty was imposed for stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. The orders were challenged in the WPS No. 3492 of 2018 on the ground that, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the documents were not supplied, which is violative of principles of natural justice and reflected arbitrariness. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Single Judge holding that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and there was no violation of principles of natural justice and by affirming the order passed by the appellate authority, dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 23.01.2025.

3. The order dated 23.01.2025, passed by learned Single Judge was challenged in WA No. 184 of 2025. The said writ appeal was also dismissed after hearing the parties vide order dated 18.03.2025 upholding the order passed by learned Single Judge.

4. Against the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by this Court in WA No. 184 of 2025, the petitioner filed Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 16712/ 2025 (Sanjeev Kumar Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which is also dismissed vide order dated 08.08.2025. After dismissal of the Special Leave to Appeal (in short “SLP”) by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed the present review petition for reviewing the order dated 18.03.2025, passed in WA No. 184 of 2025.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that, the review petition is maintainable even after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP filed by the petitioner is dismissed in limine and not on merits. Referring the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Khoday Distilleries Limited and others v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Limited” Civil Appeal No. 2432 of 2019, order dated 01.03.2019, would submit that, since the SLP was not decided on merits, the review petition can be entertained by this Court. He would further submit that, in para 5 of the order dated 18.03.2025, the observation that, the statement of the counsel for the appellant/ petitioner that the copy of inquiry report was received by the petitioner on 09.06.2016 is factually incorrect and contrary to the record and the inquiry report was never provided to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 18.09.2017. The order dated 18.09.2017 was passed without affording the opportunity to the petitioner and a major penalty of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect have been passed against the petitioner, therefore, the order dated 18.03.2025 passed by this Court in WA No. 184 of 2025 may be reviewed and the impugned order may be set aside.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record of the review petition, writ appeal and writ petition.

7. From perusal of the record it transpires that, the WPS No. 3492 of 2018 was argued before the learned Single Judge by Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate. The WA No. 184 of 2025 was argued by another counsel Mr.