Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1179 (MP)

R K GOYAL v. STATE OF M P

2006-10-07

A.K.PATNAIK, S.C.SINHO

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 27-4-2006 passed by the learned single Judge in MCC No. 794/2006. ( 2. ) THE facts briefly are that by an order dated 13-3-2006 of the State government, Department of Urban Administration and Development, the appellant was placed under suspension. In the said order dated 13-3-2006, it was stated that since the appellant had not submitted his reply against the charge-sheet, which was issued to him, he was placed under suspension. Aggrieved by the said order dated 13-3-2006, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 4042/2006 (s) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single judge and the learned Single in his order dated 20-3-2006, found that the appellant had already filed a reply against the charge-sheet before the order of suspension was passed and accordingly, directed that the order of suspension shall remain in abeyance and the Chief Secretary will consider the matter and pass suitable order keeping in mind that justice should not only be done, but it should also appear to have been done. ( 3. ) THEREAFTER, the respondents filed a review petition (MCC no. 794/2006) against the order dated 20-3-2006 and by order dated 27-4-2006, the learned Single Judge set aside his earlier order dated 20-3-2006 in W. P. No. 4042/2006 (s) after having found that the so called reply of the appellant was not really a reply but a preliminary objection to the charge-sheet. By the said order dated 27-4-2006 in MCC No. 794/2006, the learned Single Judge further directed that the Writ Petition No. 4042/2006 (s) be listed for hearing on the question of admission. ( 4. ) MR. Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the scope of review of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to correction of only mistakes or errors apparent on the face of record. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in parsion Devi and others Vs. ( 4. ) MR. Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the scope of review of an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to correction of only mistakes or errors apparent on the face of record. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others [ (1997) 8 SCC 715 ], in which the Supreme Court has held that an error which is not a self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. The Supreme Court has further held in the aforesaid case that in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected and there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. ( 5. ) WE agree with Mr. Anshuman Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that an erroneous order decided on merits cannot be corrected in review but the same can be corrected in an appeal to a higher forum as has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Parsion Devi and others Vs. Sumitri Devi and others (supra), and it is only an error or mistake apparent on the face of record which can be corrected in a review. We further agree with Mr. Anshuman singh that a mistake or error apparent on the face of record must be a palpable error and should not be one which can be detected after a long drawn process of reasoning. ( 6. ) APPLYING the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court in the facts of the present case, we find that the learned Single Judge had taken a view in his first order dated 20-3-2006 in W. P. No. 4042/2006 (s) passed under Article 226 of the Constitution that before the order of suspension, the appellant had filed a reply in Annexure P-3 to the charge-sheet and yet the order of suspension has been passed on the ground that no reply to be filed by the appellant to the charge-sheet. The learned Single Judge by the said order dated 20-3-2006 therefore, directed that the order of suspension shall remain in abeyance. But it was pointed out to the learned Single Judge in the review petition (MCC no. 794/2006) that Annexure P-3 was not a reply but was a preliminary objection of the appellant to the charge-sheet and the learned Single Judge found that he had made a mistake or error in treating Annexure P-3 as a reply and not as a preliminary objection to the charge-sheet and is passing an order dated 20-3-2006 directing that the order of suspension shall remain stayed. It is, therefore, a case where the learned Single Judge had committed a mistake or error in treating the reply in Annexure P-3, which was part of record as a reply and not a preliminary objection to the charge-sheet. When he came to realize that annexure P-3 is not really a reply but a preliminary objection to the charge-sheet, he corrected the mistake or error and passed the impugned order dated 27-4-2006. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 27-4-2006 in MCC no. 794/2006 was thus not one correcting the earlier order dated 20-3-2006 in w. P. No. 4042/2006 (s) on merits, but correcting the earlier order dated 20-3-2006 on the ground that a mistake or error had inadvertently entered into the decision on account of treating Annexure P-3 annexed to the writ petition as a reply and not as a preliminary objection to the charge-sheet. ( 7. ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this Writ appeal and accordingly dismissed the same. Writ Appeal dismissed.