Patna High Court
Raghawendra Jha vs The State Of Bihar on 30 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.136 of 2021
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.8 of 2019
======================================================
Raghawendra Jha, Male, aged about 63 years, Son of Late Mahendra Jha,
Resident of Village-Khojpura, P.O.-Babu Barhi, District-Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Joint Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Under Secretary, Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Collector, Samastipur.
6. The Civil Surgeon, Samastipur.
7. The Medical Officer-in-Charge, Primary Health Centre, Rosera, District-
Samastipur cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Additional Primary Health
Centre, Kameshwar Nagar, District-Samastipur.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. AG
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH CHAND
MALVIYA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 30-01-2024
The present Civil Review application has been filed in
assailing the order dated 18.02.2021 passed in Letters Patent
Appeal No. 08 of 2019 arising out of CWJC No. 8282 of 2017.
2. In brief, the appellant was a Medical Officer of the
Health Department, Government of Bihar. On 27th March, 2001,
he was transferred from Additional Primary Health Centre,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.136 of 2021 dt.30-01-2024
Harsingpur, Benipur, Darbhanga to Additional Primary Health
Centre, Kameshwar Nagar, Samastipur, he has taken charge on 09th
May, 2001. Thereafter he remained unauthorized absent. In this
regard, preliminary enquiry report was submitted by S.D.O.,
Rosera. Thereafter, show cause notice was issued on 25th
November, 2003. The Review petitioner's explanation was not
satisfied by the Disciplinary Authority and in the result, enquiry
was initiated under Rule 17 of the Bihar CCA Rules, 2005. Such
enquiry was an ex-parte. In other words, review petitioner failed to
participate in the Departmental Enquiry. Notice was issued
through daily newspaper, namely, 'Prabhat Khabar' on 25 th
November, 2010. Thereafter, he was dismissed from service on
07th September, 2016. These issues have been taken note of by the
Co-ordinate Bench. Prima facie, there is no error apparent on the
face of the record.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted
that the petitioner has not been heard and he has not been issued
with any show cause notice in the Departmental Enquiry. In the
Departmental Enquiry, certain records were required to be
examined in respect of remaining unauthorized absent. The same
is not forthcoming from the Inquiry records including the
dismissal order. It was not appreciated by the Co-ordinate Bench,
Patna High Court C. REV. No.136 of 2021 dt.30-01-2024
hence the review petition. The aforementioned contentions are
nothing but re-agitating grounds in the Letters Patent Appeal.
Scope of review petition under Order 47 Rule 7 is limited to the
extent, what is error apparent on the face of the record committed
by the Letters Patent Appeal Bench. Learned counsel for the
review petitioner submitted that Co-ordinate Bench has not taken
note of records relating to non-compliance of issuance of show
cause notice and certain records. In so far as service of show
cause notice is concerned, we find that Co-ordinate Bench has
taken note of service of notice through daily newspaper, i.e.,
'Prabhat Khabar' dated 25th November, 2010. It is to be noted here
that remaining unauthorized absence is from the year 2002,
enquiry was concluded on 07.09.2016. In the meanwhile, the
appellant has not made any efforts to participate in the process of
enquiry and so also in apprising the Disciplinary Authority about
his absence. Review petitioner being Medical Officer and the State
had suffered for almost eight years due to his unauthorized absent.
In fact, large number of patients have suffered without service or
lack of service and medical facilities to be provided to such of
those patients etc. In other words, Medical Officer service would
be a part and parcel of essential services.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.136 of 2021 dt.30-01-2024
4. Having regard to the conduct of the review petitioner,
he is not entitled to seek review the order of the Letters Patent
Appeal Bench dated 18.02.2021 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No. 08 of 2019.
5. At this stage, it is necessary to take note of recent
Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in respect of entertaining Civil
Review petition by various Courts.
In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax
Officer (1) & Anr. reported in 2023 SCC Online SC1406, in the
aforesaid decision eight points have been formulated and they are
as under:
"16. The gist of the afore-stated
decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to review inter
alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on
the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court
is final, and departure from that principle is
justified only when circumstances of a substantial
and compelling character make it necessary to do
so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."
Patna High Court C. REV. No.136 of 2021 dt.30-01-2024
(v) A Review Petition has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the
petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions which have already been
addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must
be such an error which, mere looking at the record
should strike and it should not require any long-
drawn process of reasoning on the points where
there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or
subsequent decision/judgment of a co- ordinate or
larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a
ground for review."
6. In the light of the above principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, review petitioner has not made out a case,
accordingly, Civil Review petition stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Ramesh Chand Malviya, J)
Anand Kr.
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 05.02.2024
Transmission Date
