ORDER : V. Ramasubramanian, J. Aggrieved by the dismissal of a writ appeal, the writ appellant has come up with the above application for review. 2. Heard Mr. C.Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. Pursuant to a charge-sheet dated 18-02-2017, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner herein. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry and submitted a report on 16-10-2017. The copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner and he submitted his objections to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, on 21-10-2017. 4. Thereafter, the Management issued a notice dated 24-11-2017 to show cause as against the proposal to impose the penalty of removal from service. Challenging the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed a writ petition. The writ petition was disposed of by the learned single Judge with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to afford personal hearing to the petitioner and to pass appropriate orders as warranted by law, uninfluenced by the observations and the proposal. 5. Contending that the learned Judge ought to have set aside the show cause notice also, the petitioner came up with a writ appeal in W.A. No. 2012 of 2017. The writ appeal was dismissed by us by an order dated 02-01-2018. Contending that none of the contentions advanced by the appellant were answered by this Court, the writ appellant has come up with the above review. 6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the very direction issued by the learned Judge to consider the objections of the petitioner on the findings of the Enquiry Officer uninfluenced by the observations made in the show cause notice and uninfluenced by the proposal to impose the penalty of removal from service, would show that the learned Judge found fault with the show cause notice and that therefore the show cause notice should be treated as non est in the eye of law. 7. In other words, the contention of the petitioner is that the direction issued by the learned single Judge in paragraph-4 of his order was wrongly interpreted by this Bench in paragraph-10 of the order in the writ appeal. 8. At the outset, it should be pointed out that even if an argument is wrongly understood and rejected, the remedy is not in filing a review application. 8. At the outset, it should be pointed out that even if an argument is wrongly understood and rejected, the remedy is not in filing a review application. If the petitioner thinks that he has such an extraordinary case on merits and the order passed by the Bench is hopelessly bad, the appropriate course of action open to him is to take it on appeal and get it set aside. 9. The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this Court did not correctly appreciate the law laid down by the Supreme Court in its decisions rendered after the 42nd amendment to the Constitution. Assuming that the said contention is correct, the petitioner should go to the Supreme Court to get the same set aside. Time and again, the Supreme Court has pointed out that it is only an error apparent on the face of the record or the discovery of new material that would enable a party to seek a review. 10. It must be pointed out that the tone and tenor of the review application is condemnable. For instance, paragraph-1 of the review application reads as follows : The conscience of the Honourable High Court know very well that the contentions of the appellant are totally acceptable in accordance with law and that the Writ Appeal deserves to be allowed in toto for the redressal of the grievance of the appellant. But, unfortunately, the unspiritual human element intervened and played its role by obstructing the judicial conscience of the Honourable High Court from playing its pious role. 11. What we have extracted above is only a sample. We do not know whether the contents of the review application reflect the attitude of the petitioner or the attitude of the counsel representing the petitioner. If it is the former, it is less condemnable. We say nothing more, since it is not always necessary to deal with the attempts at browbeating. 12. The contours of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a review are well laid down in paragraph-16 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 which reads as follows : 16. We say nothing more, since it is not always necessary to deal with the attempts at browbeating. 12. The contours of the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain a review are well laid down in paragraph-16 of the decision of the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 which reads as follows : 16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute : (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520 , to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275. (B) When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 13. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 13. The petition on hand does not fall within any of the parameters laid down by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the application for review is dismissed.