IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review No. 56 of 2008. Date of decision: 24.09.2008. Bishan Dass Sharma ….. Petitioner Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Jeevesh Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Per V.K. Ahuja, J.: This order shall dispose of the review petition filed by the petitioner under Section 114 read with Order 47 C.P.C., for review of the judgment dated 7.8.2008. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. After hearing the parties, this Court vide its judgment dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner and thus the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal was affirmed. The present application has been filed by the petitioner for review of the judgment on the ground that this Court while disposing of the writ petition had observed that the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the same officer by designation (Senior Postmaster) initiated fresh action against the petitioner for recovering the amount. Whereas, the first Memorandum 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 dated 17.9.1994 was issued by the Senior Postmaster who issued a warning, while second Memorandum dated 21.8.1997 was issued by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices which is the higher authority than the Senior Postmaster. During the course of arguments, it was pointed out that subsequent orders were not passed by the same officer but by the Appellate Authority. We have gone through both these orders and the reply filed by the petitioner to the second notice dated 21.8.1997 as well as the grounds taken in the writ petition. No such plea was taken in the writ petition that whether the orders were passed by the same authority or by the Appellate Authority or that the Appellate Authority was not competent to pass fresh order as against the petitioner. In the impugned judgment, we had already observed that the previous warning issued to the petitioner was never placed on record of Personal File of the petitioner as observed by the Appellate Authority. We had clearly observed that the subsequent order was passed by the Appellate Authority and this is the plea taken by the petitioner in the review petition also. The mere fact that it was mentioned in the subsequent order at one place that the same authority had issued a fresh notice does not affect the decision in the case since it was clearly observed that the subsequent order was passed by the Appellate Authority. The provisions of Order 47 or Section 114 C.P.C. are not attracted to the present facts since there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record, which calls for review of the judgment. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner, which is dismissed accordingly. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge V.K. Ahuja ) September 24, 2008 Judge (BSS) 3