IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that review powers are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to substitute a previous judgment or reargue the case.

ORDER :

Surepalli Nanda, J.

Heard Sri Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of review petitioners/Contemnors and Sri N. Ashok Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner/respondent No.1.

2. The present review has been filed seeking prayer as under :

“…in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, deserves to be reviewed for the above grounds and also grounds which are to be urged at the time of hearing and pass such other or further orders …”

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the Review Petitioners mainly puts forth the following submissions :

a) Sub-Rule-4 of Rule-18 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1991 needs to be considered in the present case since when the order of removal/dismissal has been set aside on technical grounds without going into merits of the case, Sub-Rule-4 of Rule-18 of Classification, Control and Appeal Rules 1991 applies, hence the Authority competent to impose the penalty decides to hold a further enquiry into the allegation on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, and the Government servants shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Authority competent to impose the suspension from the date of original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. The said rule position was not properly brought to the notice of the Court, when the order of removal was set aside in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, and hence, the present Review has to be allowed.

b) The period of removal from the date of removal of the petitioner to the date of setting aside of the same in the present writ petition is for a period of fifteen years and if at all the order has to be implemented by reinstating the petitioner into service, there will be a financial implication of about one crore on the public exchequer, and hence the order under Review needs to be reconsidered.

c) The order of removal which has been set aside in W.P.No.24093 of 2008, dated 05.06.2023, is not on the ground of illegal removal but was only on account of nonproviding an opportunity of cross-examination and also non-furnishing of vigilance report to the petitioner. Therefore, since it is purely technical in nature, and as such Sub-Rule-4 of Rule- 18 of TS (CC&A) and Conduct Rules 1991, would clearly attract and hence, Review Petitioners are entitled for the relief as claimed for in the present Review Petition.

4. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the review petitioners places reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Katheria reported in (2021) 14 SCC 668, dated 23.09.2019 in support of the review petitioners’ case and contends that the order of this Court, dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 in so far as directing reinstatement of the petitioner forthwith without back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement needs to be set aside and the order of the Court, dated 05.06.2023 passed in W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 has to be reconsidered and reviewed accordingly.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Writ Petitioner on the other hand submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and hence, the review petition cannot be entertained and the same needs to be dismissed in view of the detailed reasoned orders, dated 05.06.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No. 24093 of 2008 in favour of the petitioner referring to various judgments.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

6. Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Court 1908 which governs the grounds on which a judgment or an order can be reviewed is extracted hereunder :

a) From the discovery of new and important matters or evidence after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant;

(b) Such important matter or evidence could not be produced b