HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.6 of 2011 APPLICANT: PETITIONER RESPQNDENTS: ^ R.R. Khare, son of Shri Shivlal Khare, aged about 59 years, resident pf Kusumbasa, Near Dalli Rajhara, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Parliament Street, New Delhi 2. The Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Durg Division, Civic Center, Sector-6, Bhilai, South Chhattisgarh Division, Durg (Chhattisgarh) 3. Director, Postal Services Chhattisgarh Range, Raipur Office of the Head Post Master, Malviya Road, Raipur (CG) 492001 4. Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Carvas Building, Civil Lines, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh) Division Bench: Hon'bleShri Dhirendra Mishra & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. QRDER IN CHAMBER (J1./4/2011) 1. By this review petition, the applicant has prayed for review of the order dated 6-1-2011 passed in Writ Petition (S) No.5422/2010 whereby the applicant's writ petition against the order dated 26th May, 2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunat, JabatpurBench (for short 'the Tribunal') has been dismissed and the order of the Tribunal has been affirmed. 2. The review petition has been filed on the ground that the Tribunal's finding in paragraph-6 of its order dated 26th May, 2010, which has been reproduced in paragrpaph-7 of the order under review that the applicant continuously defalcated Government money is perverse and also on other ground that punishment is harsh, excessive, shocking and disproportionate to his misconduct, which has not been considered. 3. After close examination of the record of the writ petition and the order of the Tribunal, we find no factual ground as urged in the review petition. So far as other ground for reviewing the order under review is concerned, that aspect has alreadybeen considered and rejected by the Tribunal and upheld by this Court and the applicant cannot be permitted to argue the same ground in the garb of review petition. 4. Moreover, the scope of interference in review petition is well settled. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC. The petitioner prays for review on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record. Mistake or error apparent signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC {Reliance is placed in State of West Bengal and others Versus Kamal Sengupta and another, [(2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612]. 5. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any substance in this review petition, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge