JUDGMENT :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. The review applicant in both the Review Applications was the appellant in W.A.Nos.2351 and 2352 of 2011, wherein while upholding the charges levelled against him, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to modify the quantum of punishment. 2. The facts in brief: while the applicant was working as a Municipal Health Officer in Karur Municipality, two charges have been framed against him. The charges framed against the applicant were held to be proved after due enquiry in accordance with law. The appeal filed by the applicant was also rejected. Thereafter, a challenge was made before this Court. The learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition. On appeal, while upholding the charges, the punishments imposed on the applicant were reduced to stoppage of increment for the period of one year without cumulative effect and two years without cumulative effect respectively. The said order was passed taking into consideration of the punishment imposed on the Commissioner, Karur Municipality. Now the applicant seeks to review the common order passed by this Court on the ground that one Dr.G.K.Durairaj has been discharged of all the charges similar to the one imposed on him and in so far as the second charge memo is concerned, the very same punishment imposed on the Municipal Commissioner will have to be imposed on the applicant as well. These contentions have been raised by the applicant by engaging a different counsel than the one who argued on the earlier occasion when the orders were passed by the Honourable Division Bench. 3. Case of the Applicant: Mr.S.Vijayakumar, learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that there is an error apparent on the face of record. The yardstick adopted to the case of Dr.G.K.Durairaj will have to be followed in the case of the applicant. Similarly the very same punishment imposed upon the Municipal Commissioner will have to be awarded to the applicant. Contending that the action on the part of the respondents shall not be arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant has made reliance upon the following two judgments. (i) MAN SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 331); and (ii) RAJENDRA YADAV V. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH AND OTHERS (2013) 3 MLJ 101 (SC) 4. (i) MAN SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 331); and (ii) RAJENDRA YADAV V. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH AND OTHERS (2013) 3 MLJ 101 (SC) 4. Case of the Respondent: Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader, on instruction, would submit that the cases referred to by the applicant are different on facts. The Division Bench has, in fact, shown leniency to the applicant by modifying the punishment. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 5. CONCLUSION:- 5.1. We have perused the order passed by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2351 and 2352 of 2011 dated 03.08.2012. In clear and specific terms, this Court was pleased to hold that the applicant cannot avoid the charges levelled against him. The Honourable Division Bench shown leniency in favour of the applicant by modifying the punishment. In so far as the punishment imposed on the Municipal Commissioner is concerned, the charges levelled against him are different. The Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission has opined that it is the Manager, who was primarily responsible which was accepted by the first respondent. Further, the Municipal Commissioner had retired at the time of imposing punishment and hence, only a cut in pension alone was imposed. Therefore, the case of the Municipal Commissioner stands on a different footing. However taking into consideration of the over all circumstances, this Court has shown a leniency in favour of the applicant by reducing the punishment. 5.2. In so far as the submissions made on the orders passed in favour of one Dr.G.K.Durairaj is concerned, we are of the considered view that the same is also liable to be rejected. The applicant raised the said issue before the Division Bench of this Court, which passes the order n 03.08.2012. The said Dr.G.K.Durairaj was working at Tiruppur, whereas the applicant was working at Karur during the period mentioned in the respective charge memos. The factual allegations against both the parties differs in the sense, they are not interconnected with each other. The charges levelled against an Officer will have to be proved or disproved based upon the materials available before the Disciplinary Authority. We do not know on what basis the said Dr.G.K.Durairaj was exonerated. The factual allegations against both the parties differs in the sense, they are not interconnected with each other. The charges levelled against an Officer will have to be proved or disproved based upon the materials available before the Disciplinary Authority. We do not know on what basis the said Dr.G.K.Durairaj was exonerated. The order was passed in favour of Dr.G.K.Durairaj in a review application filed before the first respondent in pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal. 5.3. We have also perused the said order. A perusal of the said order would show that there is absolutely no reasons assigned and therefore, we are not able to find out the basis upon which the review was allowed. Further more, in this case, this Court, on facts held that the charges levelled against the applicant are proved. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no ground for allowing these review applications. 5.4. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant are not applicable to the cases on hand. In RAJENDRA YADAV V. STATE OF MADHYAPRADESH AND OTHERS (2013) 3 MLJ 101 (SC), the facts are different. In that case, some of the parties have been dismissed from service whereas one another officer was imposed with the punishment of reduction in rank. In this case, the Honourable Division Bench has already reduced the punishment imposed on the applicant. Further more, the said judgement cannot be made use of by the applicant to contend that the decision rendered in favour of Dr.G.K.Durairaj will have to be made applicable to him since the facts involved in both the cases are different with separate charge memos, with different enquiry officers and the finding pertaining to different occurrences. 5.5. Similarly the judgment rendered in MAN SINGH V. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 331) is also not applicable to the case on hand. In that case also the Honourable Apex Court has held that the delinquents covered by the very same charges and occurrence cannot be treated differently. We are also quite aware of the settled position that the review cannot be a re-hearing. 5.6. In the light of the discussions made above, we do not find any reason to review the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2351 and 2352 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012. Accordingly, these Review Applications are dismissed. No costs. We are also quite aware of the settled position that the review cannot be a re-hearing. 5.6. In the light of the discussions made above, we do not find any reason to review the order passed by this Court in Writ Appeal Nos.2351 and 2352 of 2011, dated 03.08.2012. Accordingly, these Review Applications are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.