REV.PET NO.188/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Review Petition No.188/08 Mohan Lal Meena Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 26/11/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Bhanwar Bagri, for petitioner *** Instant review petition has been filed by petitioner against the order dt.29th February, 2008. Office has pointed out that there is delay of 100 days in filing instant review petition. Counsel submits that this being review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India limitation provided U/O 47 R.1 may not apply. So far as delay is concerned that has been properly explained in the application filed along with present review petition. Taking note thereof, delay in filing present petition stands condoned and review petition is heard on merits. Petitioner was working as Constable and joint inquiry was initiated under R.16-18 of CCA Rules, 1958 after holding him guilty for charge no.2 REV.PET NO.188/08 [2] punishment was inflicted upon him which was assailed by way of CW No.745/07. When the matter came up for admission, this court was of the view that finding of guilt which has been recorded against petitioner-delinquent did not commensurate with the nature of penalty inflicted upon him. Hence, while dismissing the writ petition, this court further observed that disciplinary/appellate authority may consider to inflict upon the petitioner mejor penalty than what has been inflicted upon him while dismissing the writ petition vide judgment dt.29th February, 2008. Shri Bagri, counsel for review petitioner submits that there is an apparent error in the order as observed by this court holding charges levelled against him proved - as a consequence whereof, proceeded to make further observation where infact only charge no.2 with respect to petitioner found in drunken condition proved against him. As such, what has been further observed to be carried out by the disciplinary/ appellate authority in the facts of instant case it is an apparent error committed by this court. It appears from the record that learned Judge has REV.PET NO.188/08 [3] given more emphasis on the act of the petitioner found proved and charge no.2 with the allegation that he was found in drunken condition is one of the serious misconduct of the petitioner - taking note thereof, what has been further observed is a consequence observed by this court while dismissing writ petition and this cannot be considered it to be an apparent error which may call for interference within the limited scope of review available to this court. Counsel for petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench in Tayyab Hussain Vs. State of Rajasthan [2003 (1) CDR 118] where Division Bench observed that review lies when any question of fact is assumed by the court without any pleading to that effect and without parties joining any issue on that account where the facts are not being pleaded, it is not a fact situation herein and is of no assistance to him and Balu Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan [RLR 2001 (3) 544] was the case where the court observed that in the absence of any statutory provision Tribunal or the authority does not hold power in entertaining review application. It is not of any assistance in the instant case. Consequently, review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA188CRevPet08 26-11.doc