Wv-SS'S- HlCaieOlJRTOF^CHHATTISGARHATfiILASFUR APPLICANT PETmONER RESPONDENTS Review Petttton Nb. S2of2007 Dr. O.S. Khatri s<m of Sfari B.S. Kh^ri aged about 60 years Resident of C-75, Gayatri Nagar, Raiinir ClihattisgaA VERSU8 1. State Cf C3riiattisgarii Through; Seeretary Department of Veterinary Mantralaya, D.K.S. BhaWffli Raipir Chhattisgarh. 2. Dqmty Sea-etary, Departmetit of Veterinary Maulralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgaih. 3. Directw of Veterinary Swvices Raipur, CIihattisgaiii. (ReviewPetiti(munderRule71f/wIbile7SofthieChhaftisg^Hi^C^ Rules, 2005, for review and recaltofthe orderdated29.08.2006, passed in WritPetiti<xi(S)lA>. 1778 of2005) fSB: Hun'MeMr. SattsihK. Amfli^l. J^ Present : SfanF.S. Khai^^eounsel fwtiieApplicanL Slui Arvmd Dubey,Panel Lawyer forthe Statefespcmdente. ORDE3R (Passed on 31rt (rfAngust, 20 7) 1. DelayihJSlingreviewpetitioniSCQndcned. 2. Tte petitionerhas soug^rt reviewofthebrderdated 29.08.2006 passed •' bythiscourt,ontfaefi)llowmggrounds: "2.1. Because this HCTi'ble ^Court did not eiqa-ess any q»ini<Mi onto flie aspeetofasperskBiwiriphwasthe actualcauseof pa^iing the inyugned c>rder of conqnrisMy retirement meant^to be; a punishment causing serious prejudice against Ifae interests o'f tfae s^licant. ^il Sahu 2.2. Because tfris Hon'ble Court may also ccmsider that the impugned order ofoonyulsory retiremeat cannot be a utilized asa shortcut to circumvent the prpvisions of condueting anenqpiry before removingthe applicaflt" 3. Adtnittedly, the petiti<»erhas not pointed out any manifest error <MI the record and tto petitionw has not fartfaer broug^it into tfae notice, any new fact which could not be prpduced earlier despite diligent efiGMts made by the petitionw. It is well settled principte of law tiiat Ihe review proceedings are not by way of aa aj^eal aad have to be strictty confined to the sccye and ambitoforder 47 Rule 1 of1faeCodeofCivilProcedure,eveninexerciseof reviewjurisdictionby the High Court under Article 226 oftfie CotKtitutiou. The aiylicant has not produced any hew ground fOT review, excqrt tte same groimdwMchhasbeencQnsidCTedanddecidedmthewritpetition. 4. Thereis no materialto review Ifae (M-der dated 29.085006, passed by thiscourtin W.P. (S)No. 1778 of2005. 5. Accwdingly, tius review petition stands distnissed for Ihe reascai mentioi»dabove. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge