Madhya Pradesh High Court
Mahesh Kumar Sharma vs Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank on 13 October, 2023
Author: Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA
ON THE 13 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
REVIEW PETITION No. 1039 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
MAHESH KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHRI GAURISHANKAR
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
RETIRED, R/O TIRUPATI ROAD MAGAJ PURA ROAD,
DISTRICT DHAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(SHRI AMOL SHRIVASTAVA, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER)
AND
MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK THROUGH ITS
PRESIDENT, 204, C-21 BUSINESS PARK, RING ROAD,
RADISSON SQUARE, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(NONE)
This petition coming on for admission this day, Justice Sushrut Arvind
Dharmadhikari passed the following:
ORDER
Heard on I.A. No.7525/2023, an application for condonation of delay.
For the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No.7525/2023 is allowed.
Delay of 67 days in filing the petition is hereby condoned.
Also heard on the question of admission.
This review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been filed for clarification/modification of the judgment dated 14.06.2023,
passed in W.A. No.296/2023.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 16-10-2023
04:51:40
02. Originally the petitioner had filed writ petition bearing W.P.
No.1529/2022 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
petitioner had challenged the charge-sheet as well as the show cause notice.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.A. No.296/2023. The said writ appeal
was finally decided vide order dated 14.06.2023 by passing the following order
:-
9. It is a trite law that mere issuance of a show-cause notice could not
imply that the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. It is only
when a charge-sheet is issued, it can be said that the disciplinary
proceedings are in process. In the present case, admittedly, no charge-
sheet was issued to the appellant prior to his superannuation. The
learned Single Judge has misinterpreted the Regulation 45(3) and the
Explanation appended to Regulation 10. The Apex Court in the case of
UCO Bank & Another (supra) has clearly held that removal or
dismissal from service cannot be imposed on an employee who has
already stood retired from service. Since the appellant was allowed to
superannuate and thereafter the charge-sheet was issued, only a
proceeding, inter alia withholding of his pension under the Pension
Regulations cannot be initiated against the appellant. Consequently,
the show-cause notice and charge-sheet cannot be allowed to stand.
Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 27.05.2021 and show-cause
notice dated 15.09.2021 are hereby quashed. As a consequence, order
dated 14.02.2023 passed in W.P. No.1529 of 2022 is also set aside.
The appellant shall be entitled for all retiral benefits in accordance
with law.
03. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court while
allowing the writ appeal had observed in the order that the petitioner is entitled
for all retiral benefits in accordance with law. Meaning thereby, the petitioner is
also entitled for interest on delayed payment as provided in law.
04. On perusal of the impugned order, it is seen that the issue with regard
to grant of interest on delayed payment has not been deliberated upon,
however, the orders impugned in the writ petition were set aside and the
respondent/ Bank was directed to grant consequential benefits in accordance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 16-10-2023
04:51:40
with law. Since the issue of grant of interest was not considered, no ground for
review is made out.
05. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not
permissible. In order to seek review the petitioner has to demonstrate that the
order suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while
deciding the review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgment passed by it.
The petitioner cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because
it is not an appeal in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on
merits.[S ee: J . R . Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681),
S.Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC
464 and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and
Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612].
06. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for
successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made
out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs.
Plni Roman (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has
to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error
which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed
merely because it is erroneous.
07. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal
Vs. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be
permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review."
08. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in
the case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no
error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 16-10-2023
04:51:40
impugned.
09. The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However,
the petitioner would be at liberty to seek interest on delayed payment in
accordance with law, if so advised.
(S. A. DHARMADHIKARI) (PRAKASH CHANDRA GUPTA)
JUDGE JUDGE
pn
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREETHA HARI
NAIR
Signing time: 16-10-2023
04:51:40
