1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Misc. Civil Application No.408 of 2008. In [W. P. No.1065 of 2003 (Decided on 19-10-2006)] APPLICANTS : 1. Additional Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Buldana. 2. Chief Executive Officer, Zillah Parishad, Buldana, -VERSUS- RESPONDENTS : 1. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati. 2. The State of Maharashtra, Ministry of Rural Development, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 3. Shri Atmaram S/o Bhagwan Atkari, Agriculture Officer, (General), Panchayat Samiti, Khamgaon, District-Buldana. ------------------------------------------------ Smt. Leela R. Varsale, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Anoop Parihar, APP for Respondents no.1&2. Shri M. P. Parkhi, Advocate for Respondent No.3. 2 CORAM: A. H. JOSHI AND A.B.CHAUDHARY, JJ. DATED: 1st APRIL 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT :( Per A. H. Joshi, J) 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of contesting respondent No.2 – the original writ petitioner represented through Mr. M. R. Parkhi Advocate. 2. The applicants who are respondents no.2 and 3 in decided Writ Petition No.1065/2003, have filed this application for review. 3. It is urged that this Court had decided the Writ Petition No.1065 of 2003 relying upon Rule 6 of [Maharashtra Zilla Parishad District Services (Discipline & appeal) Rules 1964], rather than rule 7, which is error apparent on the face of record. 4. We have, with the assistance of learned Advocate for Petitioner perused Rule 6 and Rule 7. 3 5. It is seen that Rule 6 pertains to procedure to be followed while imposing of major penalty while Rule 7 pertains to the procedure for minor penalty as prescribed under Rule 4(1) to 4(3) thereof. 6. We have perused the show cause notice, Chargesheet dated 1-10-2001, page 26, Annexure-D of the Writ Petition No.1065/2003. It does not reveal that it was restricted to Clause (1) to (3) of Rule 4 i.e. minor penalty. 7. This form and content of notice connotes that in the very beginning proposed enquiry was not restricted to minor penalty. By its corollary, the enquiry proposed to be conducted was under Rule 6, as well as Rule 7. Thus, the procedure which was bound to be followed was as laid down in Rule 6. 8. We find that the ground of review as urged is thus raised erroneously and contrary to what is seen from record as indicated in the foregoing para. 4 9. We see that by order sought to be reviewed, this Court had made the rule absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) in the writ Petition No.1065 of 2003, which reads as follows: “(a) issue necessary writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 5.10.2001 and order dated 05.10.2002 issued by the Respondents No.2 & 1 respectively and also be pleased to direct the suspension period as duty.” [Quoted from page 14 of the Writ Petition No.1065/2003's Paper Book] 10. It is clear from the operative order that this Court did not put any rider or embargo on the employer at the time of quashing the findings of Enquiry Officer and order of punishment that no further enquiry should be conducted in the same Chargesheet. 11. The order sought to be reviewed, therefore, does not cause any prejudice to the applicants – the employer. We, therefore, see no grounds to grant any indulgence in the review application. 5 12. Moreover, any error of fact apparent on the face of record is not shown. 13. Review application has no merit,and is, therefore, rejected. Rule is discharged. In the circumstance, we direct that the petitioner shall bear own costs. JUDGE JUDGE //MULEY//