By the Court.—Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. This review application has been preferred alleging errors in the judgment dated 2.2.2016.

2. This matter was heard by us on 7.12.2016 and we passed the following order calling upon the learned counsel to assist the Court on the issues so raised :

“Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Mishra for the petitioner.

The contention of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the Bench which disposed of the matter finally on 2.2.2016 also went on to delve into the issue of the writ petition being not maintainable on account of withdrawal of the suit. According to the learned counsel the withdrawal of the suit was an issue which had already been decided as a preliminary issue vide order dated 29.10.2015. In view of this it is urged that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as the issue which has been finally decided and the preliminary objection of non-maintainability of the writ petition has been rejected, the same could not have been a subject-matter of decision afresh while delivering the final judgment.

It has been pointed out that the application which was moved by the applicant for withdrawing the suit is Annexure 2 to the supplementary-affidavit filed by the petitioner dated 11.8.2015 and the order that was passed thereon is appended as Annexure CA-1 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Life Insurance Corporation. A perusal of the said application indicates that the application was moved seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file a fresh suit as some aspects of the dispute had been left over to be incorporated in the plaint. The said application for withdrawal was partly allowed granting permission to withdraw the suit but the prayer to file a fresh suit was declined categorically on the ground that no such material was available so as to grant that permission.

From the record it is evident that the punishment order against the applicant had been passed on 2.5.2006 against which the petitioner had submitted a memorial in 2007 that was finally disposed of rejecting the same on 6.2.2009. Thus, the said order was very much in existence when the application for withdrawing the suit was filed on 20.2.2010 and the order was passed on 19.3.2010.

It is on these principles that the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 read with the relevant decisions in this regard have to be taken into account to ascertain the final outcome and impact of the aforesaid application and the withdrawal of the suit so as to construe the abandonment of the claim or allowing its continuance through the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the matter be taken up tomorrow to address the Court on this issue.

Put up tomorrow.”

3. The issue relates to the punishment of the petitioner, vide order dated 2.5.2006 whereby he was awarded a penalty reducing him to the minimum pay scale payable in the cadre of Development Officers of the Life Insurance Corporation of India. Against the punishment order, the petitioner preferred an appeal that was dismissed on 18.1.2007 and a memorium filed against the appellate order was also rejected on 6.2.2009.

Prior to the rejection of memorium, the petitioner had filed a Regular Suit No. 828 of 2008 assailing his order of punishment as well as the appellate order. During the pendency of the suit, the memorium filed against the appellate order, came to be rejected on 6.2.2009.

4. In the background of the aforesaid development, the petitioner moved an application for withdrawal of Regular Suit No. 828 of 2008. A copy of the said application has been filed with the supplementary-affidavit dated 11.8.2015 filed by the petitioner as Annexure SA-2 therein.

5. A perusal of the said application indicates that the petitioner had stated that since certain important issues had be