Review jurisdiction under Article 226 has limited scope, prohibiting re-evaluation of evidence or substitution of views unless there is an error apparent on the record.

JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. The instant review petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, by the writ petitioner, claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, most respectfully prayed by the humble petitioner before of your kind Lordships that: this writ review petition filed by the petitioner, may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2269/2020 titled Harish Kumar Chouhan Vs. Raj. Marudhara Gramin Bank & Ors. may kindly be reviewed and accordingly writ petitions filed by the petitioner, may be kindly be allowed to the prayer made therein.

Any other order deemed fit in the facts and circumstances in favour of the petitioner may kindly be passed.”

2. The review-petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2269/2020 against the order dated 23.05.2019 whereby the petitioner was punished with penalty of demotion of rank to the post of Office Assistant from the post of Officer Scale - I and was put to the lowest scale of pay of Office Assistant’s post, the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Appellate Authority thereby rejecting departmental appeal, and also against the departmental enquiry proceedings carried out by the respondent-Bank alongwith the charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019 in pursuance of which the departmental enquiry proceedings were initiated and sought directions to treat the suspension period of the petitioner as on duty and for grant of consequential benefits; the said petition, alongwith other connected petitions, was dismissed vide the common judgment 09.02.2023, which is under review.

3. Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that this Hon’ble Court while passing the judgment under review, did not consider certain important aspects, i.e., (i) if the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was correct in view of the gravity of charges under consideration therein; (ii) if the appellate authority properly exercised the jurisdiction while deciding the departmental appeal and (iii) whether for the same sets of allegations, the respondent-bank could proceed with second departmental enquiry for which petitioner was already penalized.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the CBI case was registered on 12.12.2017, which was prior to the issuance of first charge-sheet dated 12.09.2018 and not after the second charge- sheet, while the order dated 09.02.2023 mentions that it was registered after issuance of the second charge-sheet.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that this Hon’ble Court had already dealt with in details all the issues pertaining to the case and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, in the judgment dated 09.02.2023 under review, and therefore, no case for review is made out, and the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case.

6. This Court observes that the review-petitioner filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2269/2020 challenging the order dated 23.05.2019, whereby he was penalized with demotion from the post of Officer Scale-I to that of Office Assistant and was placed at the lowest pay scale applicable to the said post. The petitioner also assailed the appellate order dated 22.10.2019 rejecting his departmental appeal, the departmental enquiry proceedings conducted by the respondent-Bank, as well