JUDGMENT S. B. Sinha and R. N. Sahay, JJ. This petition has been filed with the object of seeking review of our judgment dated 25.6.91 in C.W.J.C. No. 2547 of 1991(R) whereby the suspension of the respondent was held to be invalid on account of contravention of Rule 20 of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1981. We had held in our judgment that an employee of the Corporation suspended by virtue of Rule 20(2) of the Rules on account of his detention in jail custody could not continue to be in suspension after he was released from custody unless a fresh order under Rule 20 (1) (b) was passed. We had also held that the General Manager of the Corporation, who had passed the suspension order under Rule 20(2), had no authority to pass the said order since he was not appointing authority. 2. The review of our judgment is sought on the ground that the petitioner-respondent had not placed all the material facts before this Court and in fact the Chairman had passed a fresh order after the petitioner was released from jail custody and had filed an application for revocation of the suspension order. The said order was passed under Rule 20(1)(b) of the Rules. It appears from the noting on the file that the respondent-petitioner filed an application on 27.3.1984 before the General Manager requesting for revocation of the order of suspension since he had been released on bail. The General Manager of the plant submitted his note to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director that since a Criminal case was pending against the respondent, the suspension may continue in view of rule 20(1)(b) of the Rules. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director passed the following order on 6.4.1988 :- "He cannot be taken into duty at the stage he should be paid during the period the subsistence allowance as per Rules." 3. It is contended by Mr. Kameswar Prasad the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation that the aforesaid order was passed under Rule 20 (1) (b) of the Rules which provides as follows ;- "The appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or the disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the management by general or special order may place an employee under suspension." (a) ... (b) Where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial." 4. Mr. Prasad, when questioned also stated that there is nothing on record to show that any fresh order of suspension had been issued in terms of Rule 20(1)b) of the Heavy Engineering Corporation Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 5. It is, thus, clear that the writ petitioner was never communicated with any order of suspension passed by the competent authority issued under the aforementioned Rules. 6. This Court in C.W.J.C. 2547 of 1990 (R) clearly held that Rule 20(i) and Rule 20(ii) operate in different fields and, thus, there is nothing to show that any order of suspension was passed by the competent authority upon invoking the provisions of Rule 20(i) of the Rules. 7. Further from a bare perusal of the note-sheet on. the basis whereof, the civil review application has been filed it appears that the aforementioned note-sheet was issued in view of the representation of the writ petitioner on the ground that he had been released on bail, his order of suspension on account of his having been in jail custody for more than 48 hours be revoked, and on the basis of the aforementioned representation, a note-sheet was prepared by the General Manager wherein the following order has been passed :- "He cannot be taken into duty at this stage. He should be paid during the period his subsistence allowance as per rules." It is, thus, clear that even the Chairman-cum-Managing Director did not pass any order that a fresh order of suspension in terms of Rule 20(i)(b) of the aforementioned Rule be passed. 8. As indicated hereinbefore, there is nothing on record to show that any office order pursuant to the aforementioned observation of the Chairman-cum-Managing Director was prepared, issued, and communicated to the writ petitioner. Further it is now well-known that this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should review its own order only in exceptional circumstance. 9. The writ petition was disposed of upon hearing the counsel of the parties and upon perusal of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner-Corporation. It is admitted that the aforementioned order-sheet has not been produced in the aforementioned writ petition. 10. 9. The writ petition was disposed of upon hearing the counsel of the parties and upon perusal of the writ petition and the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner-Corporation. It is admitted that the aforementioned order-sheet has not been produced in the aforementioned writ petition. 10. An application for review can be entertained only if there is any error apparent on the face of the record. A litigant seeking a review cannot, therefore, be permitted to rely upon additional materials which had never been placed on records at the time of passing of the order in respect whereof a review is sought for. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in State of Bihar v. Shakti Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. reported in AIR 1991 Patna 261 : 1991(2) PLJR 150 laid down the law in the following terms : "I would further wish to state that the submissions now being urged on behalf of the State ought to have been advanced in C. W.J.C. No. 3292 of 1983 or at any rate in C.W.J.C. No. 1179 of 1987. The insurmountable obstacle in the way of the State is that the submission is being canvassed for the first time in an application for review and even if it is held that the submission advanced represents one of the two possible views of the case (though I find it clearly less acceptable) it does not justify this Court to review or modify an earlier order passed in presence of all concerned." Learned Advocate General wants this court to give a second thought over its earlier decision on merits which is not permissible in a review petition." 12. Taking into consideration these aspects of the matter, it must be held that there is no merit in this application for review which is accordingly dismissed.