Hon’ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.—Heard Mr. H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate for the review petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the material available on record.

2. The instant review petition has been filed under Chapter V, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court read with Section 114 and Order 47 of the C.P.C. by the review petitioner against the judgment and order dated 27.2.2012 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6565 (SS) of 2008 whereby the said writ petition was dismissed.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner was that wrong facts were placed before the Court on behalf of the respondents and relying upon the pronouncement of this Court in the case of Riyasat Alia and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 (53) AIR 257, which has been followed in the case of Suraj Prasad Tewari v. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 404, the said petition was dismissed. It is further submitted that the said case laws were with reference to the Home Guards, who were not treated to be civil servants as they were on daily payment basis. He has further submitted that review petitioner Sarojani Devi was not a Home Guard but she was Block Organizer in Home Guard Department and subsequently she was promoted under U.P. Home Guard Subordinate Service Rules, 1982 in regular pay scale and confirmed under U.P. Government Service Confirmation Rules, 1991 in Block Organizer Cadre, as such, she was a civil servant and the rejection of her earlier petition holding her to be an ordinary Home Guard not falling without the purview of Civil Servant was an error apparent on the face of record.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has argued that even if the mistake as asserted by the learned counsel for the review petitioner is accepted even then, the petitioner was not entitled for any relief because she has been convicted for the offence under Sections 306 and 498-A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 11, Lucknow, in Sessions Trial No. 1364 of 2001.

5. Submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner is that inspite of the conviction of the review petitioner, her conduct ought to have been evaluated by the competent authority and without evaluating the same, she has been dismissed from service. Because of the error, apparent on the face of record, this aspect of the matter was not considered.

6. Learned counsel for review petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards paragraph No. 11 of the counter-affidavit filed in main petition wherein it was pleaded on behalf of the respondents that as per the provisions of the Government Order No. 6.10/79-Ka.-1 dated 12.10.1979 unless the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal appeal filed by her against the order dated 28.3.2008, she cannot be considered for her reinstatement in service. The provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India have not been violated.

7. On the basis of this averment made in the counter-affidavit, it has been submitted that service of the review petitioner was governed by Article 311 of the Constitution of India as well as U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999. so the finding of the Court that review petitioner was not a civil servant, was an error apparent on the fact of record.

8. After going through the record, it is clear that there is an error apparent on the fact of record that review petitioner Sarojani Devi was Home Guard and she does not fall without the purview of Civil Servant. But the position remains that she has been convicted as stated above, so Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India shall also apply.

9. Submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner was that by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, the petitioner could have been dismissed from service only after evaluating her conduct. But without evaluating her conduct, her dismissal w