Pradeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1154 MP

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 1154 MP
Judgement Date : 31 March, 2021

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Pradeep Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2021

Author: Prakash Shrivastava

                                     1

         THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                     RP-74-2021
                (Pradeep   Singh vs State of M.P. & others)

JABALPUR
DATED : 31.03.2021
     Shri Girish Kekre, learned counsel for the petitioner.
     Shri Vikram Johri, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
     Heard.
     This review petition is directed against the order dated 15 th
December, 2020 passed in W.P. No.27816/2018 whereby the writ
petition has been allowed and the order of dismissal dated
22/5/2018 and appellate order dated 15/11/2018 have been set
aside by granting liberty to the respondents to proceed against

the petitioner in accordance with law in respect of the alleged financial and other irregularities committed by him. It is further made clear that if the respondents fail to conclude the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order, the petitioner will be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been reinstated forthwith after setting aside the order of dismissal from service.

As against it, learned Panel Lawyer pointed out that since it is a case of serious financial irregularities, therefore, the respondents has been granted four months' time to take up and conclude the fresh proceedings.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that the order under review is well

reasoned order and having regard to the circumstances of the case a direction has been issued in respect of fresh proceeding within a period of four months and keeping the reinstatement of the petitioner in abeyance till such time. On perusal of the order, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, in my opinion, no case for review is made out.

The scope of interference in the review petition is very limited. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajender Kumar and others Vs. Rambhai and others reported in 2007(15) SCC 513 considering the limited scope of review jurisdiction has held as under:-

"5 On a perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Court without considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of reappreciating the evidence and on such reappreciation of evidence redetermined the compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier.

6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997(8) SCC 715 while holding that the error should be self evident not requiring process of reasoning has observed as under:-

"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of

review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

The Supreme court in the matter of Meera Bhanja (Smt) Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt) reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 considering the limited scope of review has held that scope of review is confined to error apparent on the face of the record. The error must be such as would be apparent on mere looking of the record without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning. It is also settled position in law that review power may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as that would be a province of a Court of appeal and the review power should not be confused with the appellate power.