Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Harish Kumar Chouhan vs The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank … on 19 June, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:26940]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 18/2023
Harish Kumar Chouhan S/o Shri Gauri Shankar Chouhan, Aged
About 60 Years, Caste Sc, R/o H.no.10/63, Mp Nagar, Behind
Government Dispensary, Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Hall Office
Assistant At Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.),
Through Its Chairman, Head Office - Tulsi Tower, 9Th B
Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chief General Manager (Vigilance), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
3. The Chairman, (The Disciplinary Authority), Rajasthan
Marudhara Gramin Bank (R.m.g.b.), Head Office- Tulsi
Tower, 9Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jagdish Vyas
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment
Reserved on 02/05/2025
Pronounced on 19/06/2025
1. The instant review petition has been preferred under Article
226 of the Constitution of India read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, by the writ petitioner, claiming the
following reliefs:
“It is, therefore, in the given facts and circumstances,
most respectfully prayed by the humble petitioner before of
your kind Lordships that: this writ review petition filed by(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26940] (2 of 7) [WRW-18/2023]the petitioner, may kindly be allowed and the impugned
judgment and order dated 09.02.2023 passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2269/2020 titled “Harish Kumar Chouhan
Vs. Raj. Marudhara Gramin Bank & Ors.“, may kindly be
reviewed and accordingly writ petitions filed by the
petitioner, may be kindly be allowed to the prayer made
therein.
Any other order deemed fit in the facts and
circumstances in favour of the petitioner may kindly be
passed.”
2. The review-petitioner filed a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 2269/2020 against the order dated 23.05.2019
whereby the petitioner was punished with penalty of demotion of
rank to the post of Office Assistant from the post of Officer Scale –
I and was put to the lowest scale of pay of Office Assistant’s post,
the impugned order dated 22.10.2019 passed by the Appellate
Authority thereby rejecting departmental appeal, and also against
the departmental enquiry proceedings carried out by the
respondent-Bank alongwith the charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019 in
pursuance of which the departmental enquiry proceedings were
initiated and sought directions to treat the suspension period of
the petitioner as on duty and for grant of consequential benefits;
the said petition, alongwith other connected petitions, was
dismissed vide the common judgment 09.02.2023, which is under
review.
3. Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, submitted that this Hon’ble Court while passing the
judgment under review, did not consider certain important
aspects, i.e., (i) if the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26940] (3 of 7) [WRW-18/2023]
correct in view of the gravity of charges under consideration
therein; (ii) if the appellate authority properly exercised the
jurisdiction while deciding the departmental appeal, and (iii)
whether for the same sets of allegations, the respondent-bank
could proceed with second departmental enquiry for which
petitioner was already penalized.
3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the CBI case was
registered on 12.12.2017, which was prior to the issuance of first
charge-sheet dated 12.09.2018 and not after the second charge-
sheet, while the order dated 09.02.2023 mentions that it was
registered after issuance of the second charge-sheet.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made
on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that this Hon’ble Court had
already dealt with in details all the issues pertaining to the case
and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, in the
judgment dated 09.02.2023 under review, and therefore, no case
for review is made out, and the instant review petition is liable to
be dismissed.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
record of the case.
6. This Court observes that the review-petitioner filed S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 2269/2020 challenging the order dated
23.05.2019, whereby he was penalized with demotion from the
post of Officer Scale-I to that of Office Assistant and was placed
at the lowest pay scale applicable to the said post. The petitioner
also assailed the appellate order dated 22.10.2019 rejecting his
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26940] (4 of 7) [WRW-18/2023]
departmental appeal, the departmental enquiry proceedings conducted
by the respondent-Bank, as well as the charge-sheet dated 14.05.2019
which formed the basis of the said enquiry. The petitioner further
sought directions for treating his suspension period as ‘on duty’ with
consequential benefits. However, the said writ petition was dismissed
vide judgment dated 09.02.2023, which is now under review.
7. This Court further observes that in the review jurisdiction,
there is a very limited scope for interference, more particularly, in
light of a catena of judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in
this regard. This Court is conscious of the judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs
V. Narayana Reddy and Ors. Civil Appeals No. 5503-04 of
2022, decided on 18.08.2022), relevant portion whereof is
reproduced as hereunder:-
“13. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that
a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery
of new and important matters or evidence which, after
exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of
the applicant or could not be produced by him when the
decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
17. It is also settled law that in exercise of review
jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to
arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are
possible in a matter.
In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech
Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others
(2005) 6 SCC 651 , this Court observed as follows:
“10. ….In a review petition it is not open to this
Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a
different conclusion, even if that is possible.
Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26940] (5 of 7) [WRW-18/2023]impress us that the correspondence exchanged
between the parties did not support the conclusion
reached by this Court. We are afraid such a
submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in
a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on
record is fully within the domain of the appellate
court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced,
the court records a finding of fact and reaches a
conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a
review petition unless it is shown that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record or for some
reason akin thereto. It has not been contended
before us that there is any error apparent on the
face of the record. To permit the review petitioner
to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence
would amount to converting a review petition into
an appeal in disguise.”
(emphasis added)
18. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party
cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments
for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The
power of review is not to be confused with the appellate
power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors
committed by a subordinate Court………
26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has
been consistently held by this Court in several judicial
pronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is
not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open
to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the
face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by
a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error
apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise
its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the
guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct
a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely
because there is a possibility of taking two views in a
matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any
new or important matter of evidence has emerged after
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26940] (6 of 7) [WRW-18/2023]
passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such
evidence was not within the knowledge of the party
seeking review or could not be produced by it when the
order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due
diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous
decision as against an error apparent on the face of the
record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the
Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of
the record can only be corrected by exercising review
jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order
XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described
as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has
been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at
least analogous to those specified in the rule” (Refer:
Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram AIR 1922 PC 112 and Moran
Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius and Others 1955 SCR 520)”
8. This Court further observes that in the above backdrop, the
reliefs sought by the review-petitioner herein, do not come within
the scope of review jurisdiction. The review jurisdiction has a
limited scope of interference and it cannot re-appreciate the
evidence to arrive at a different conclusion unless it is shown
there is error apparent on the face of record or discovery of new
and important matters or evidence, after exercise of due
diligence, were not within the knowledge of the person seeking
review. However, this Court finds that no such case of indulgence
has been made out.
9. This Court also observes that the date of registration of the
criminal case before the Central Bureau of Investigation, Jodhpur
has been mentioned in the judgment dated 09.02.2023 under
review, as 19.12.2017, thus, the contention of the review-
petitioner that observations of the Court that the CBI case was
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:26940] (7 of 7) [WRW-18/2023]registered prior to the issuance of first charge-sheet and not after
the second charge-sheet, is misconstrued and is of no
consequence.
10. This Court further observes that this Hon’ble Court in the
detailed judgment dated 09.02.2023 has already dealt with all
the issues raised by the review-petitioner in this review petition.
This Court thus does not feel persuaded by any of the grounds
raised in the present review petition so as to review its earlier
judgment dated 09.02.2023.
11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and afore-quoted
precedent law as well as looking into the factual matrix of the
present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant
any relief to the review-petitioner in the present review petition.
12. Consequently, the instant review petition is dismissed.
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
114-SKant/-
(Downloaded on 19/06/2025 at 10:20:38 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)