IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.360 of 2010 Annpurna Sinha Versus The Union Of India & Ors ----------- For the Petitioner : Shri Lala S.N.Rais, Advocate For the Respondents: Shri Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, C.G.C ------- 2. 20.07.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. and the learned Counsel for the Respondents. I.A. No. 2687 of 2011 has been filed for substitution of the writ petitioner by his wife on the ground that the former has been deceased on 25.3.2010 prior to institution of the review application but after disposal of the writ application. Considering that the matter has financial implications for the family of the deceased in the larger interest of justice we consider it proper to allow the I.A. application and permit the petitioner to espouse the case of her late husband. There is no explanation in the review application that why during his life time he did not prefer any review of the judgment dated 17.8.2007 in CWJC No. 9262 of 2006. Nine months after his death the present review application was filed making a bald statement in paragraph 2 that he was under treatment at the IGIMS Hospital, Sheikhpura, Patna. In support of the claim for illness Annexure 2 relied upon is the death certificate. Therefore there is no explanation whatsoever much less plausible with regard to any explanation for the inordinate delay in preferring the review application. Even then we permitted the Counsel to address us on merits keeping in mind that the fact finding in the enquiry have been affirmed by the disciplinary authority and by the Administrative Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that verification of the signature of the deceased was not in accordance with law. The judgment from which the review is sought proceeds on the premise that based on the materials on record finding based on the preponderance of probability requires no interference. In fact it has been observed in the order as follows:- “From the order passed in appeal it appears that the petitioner never disputed his signature placed on record before the Enquiry Officer.” The law stands settled that a review application would be entertainable only for errors apparent on the face of the record. Not being an appeal in disguise it would not be the jurisdiction of this Court under review to reassess the allegations, the materials and the defence to arrive at a fresh conclusion. That would be the jurisdiction of the appellate court only. The review application is dismissed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)