ORDER I.A. No. 3523 of 2014: Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J. 1. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of approximately three months in filing the present Civil Review Petition. 2. Looking to the reasons, stated in this interlocutory application, the delay of approximately three months in filing the Civil Review Petition is hereby condoned. I.A. No. 3523 of 2014 is accordingly, allowed and disposed of. Civil Review No. 22 of 2014: 3. With consent of the party in person as well as with the consent of the officer of respondent-Steel Authority of India Ltd., this matter is taken up for admission. 4. This Civil Review Petition has been preferred by respondent no.1 in L.P.A. No.58 of 2012. The said Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. against the judgment delivered by the learned single Judge in a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3899 of 2007 dated 16th November, 2011. 5. We have heard the party in person-applicant and also Mr. R.C. Jain, Deputy Manager (Law), Steel Authority of India Limited. The party in person-applicant had preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 3899 of 2007, challenging the order passed by the respondent-Management, relating to the disciplinary action and punishment, imposed upon him. The learned single Judge because of procedural lapses while conducting the inquiry, observed that adequate opportunity of being heard was not given to this applicant [petitioner of W.P.(S) No. 3899 of 2007] and therefore, the 2.matter was remanded for conducting inquiry afresh, against which Letters Patent Appeal was preferred by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. being L.P.A. No. 58 of 2012, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, with certain observations, especially at paragraph nos. 17 and 18, which read as under: “17. By reading of the report of the Inquiry Officer, we find that there is nothing to show that the documents were produced and the witnesses were examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer. Likewise, there is nothing to show that an opportunity was afforded to the respondent to produce the evidence. By reading of the report of the Inquiry Officer, we find that there is nothing to show that the documents were produced and the witnesses were examined by or on behalf of the Presenting Officer. Likewise, there is nothing to show that an opportunity was afforded to the respondent to produce the evidence. Since the mandatory requirement of Rules 25.0(3) and (11) were not complied with, the learned Single Judge was in right in holding that the appellant while holding the inquiry had not adhered to the mandatory requirement of Rule 25.0 of the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1977 of the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and also no sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses. The learned Single Judge was right in holding that there was violation of principles of natural justice and, therefore, we do not find any reason, warranting interference with the impugned order. 18. This Letters Patent Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Liberty is given to the appellant to inquire into the matter afresh from the stage of commencement of enquiry by furnishing the documents relied upon by the appellant to the respondent and afford opportunity to the respondent and proceed with the enquiry in accordance with law.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In view of the aforesaid decision, the inquiry was ordered to continue from the stage of furnishing the documents, which were relied upon by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. 7. Party in person submitted that there cannot be two inquiries for one misconduct and while relying upon the decision, rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.D. Pandey & anr., as reported in (2002)10 SCC 471 and also upon a decision, rendered by this Hon'ble Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Jharkhand & ors., as reported in 2014(2) JBCJ 460(HC), submitted that neither a fresh inquiry can be started nor there can be second inquiry for the same 3.misconduct. This contention of the applicant is not accepted by this Court, firstly; for the reason that this contention is not about an error apparent on the face of the record, rather it is on the merits and hence, he ought to have challenged the order, passed in L.P.A. No. 58 of 2012 before the higher forum. This contention of the applicant is not accepted by this Court, firstly; for the reason that this contention is not about an error apparent on the face of the record, rather it is on the merits and hence, he ought to have challenged the order, passed in L.P.A. No. 58 of 2012 before the higher forum. Secondly; we are also not accepting this contention for the reason that what is there in the observation of the Division Bench of this Court in paragraph no. 18 of the order, as stated herein above, is neither a fresh inquiry nor a second inquiry, but, it is continuation of the same, from a particular stage. Thirdly; we are not accepting the contention of the applicant for the reason that as per the learned single Judge, there were some procedural defects and, therefore, for giving equal opportunity to both the sides, the Division Bench has observed that instead of de-novo or fresh inquiry, there shall be continuation of the said inquiry, from the stage of furnishing the documents, relied upon by the Steel Authority of India Ltd. 8. In view of the aforesaid reasons, there is no substance in this Civil Review Petition and hence, the same is hereby dismissed.