ORDER : HARINATH.N, J. 1. The petitioner seeks to review the judgment passed by this Court in WP.No.33879 of 2010 vide order dated 25.07.2024. The present review petition is filed canvassing before this Court that this Court has not considered the additional affidavit filed in the writ petition. 2. The other ground raised by the petitioner for seeking review of the order is that the competent authority ought to pass the order of punishment and that the order of dismissal passed by the Deputy General Manager and the order in appeal passed by the General Manager are without jurisdiction. 3. This Court has dismissed the writ petition refusing interfere with the order of dismissal dated 31.03.2006 and also sought a consequential direction to reinstate the petitioner. 4. This Court passed an order on merits taking into consideration all the material which is available on record and also gave a finding on merits. The petitioner has placed reliance on Andhra Bank Officer Employees (Conduct Regulations) and submits that as per schedule in the regulation the disciplinary authority is the Assistant General Manager and the appellate authority is the Deputy General Manager. In so far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner was working in Junior Management Grade Scale – I and that the competent authority for imposing the punishment on disciplinary enquiries would be the Assistant General Manager and the appellate authority would be the General Manager. In the present case the impugned order of punishment is imposed by the Deputy General Manager and the order and appeal is passed by the General Manager. It is submitted that this Court has not considered the competency of the disciplinary authority and as such seeks review of the order passed. 5. It is trite to refer to Regulation 5(3) of Andhra Bank Officer Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. The said regulation relates to Authority to institute disciplinary proceedings and impose penalties. It is mentioned in the said regulation that the disciplinary authority or any other authority higher than it, may impose any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 on any officer employee. 6. This Regulation amply clarifies the reservations the petitioner has on the competency of the authority which impose the punishment of dismissal. 7. The petitioner could not point out any apparent error on the face of the order which is either contrary to the pleadings and annexure. 8. 6. This Regulation amply clarifies the reservations the petitioner has on the competency of the authority which impose the punishment of dismissal. 7. The petitioner could not point out any apparent error on the face of the order which is either contrary to the pleadings and annexure. 8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury , [ (1995) 1 SCC 170 ] , while considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows: "The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226." 9. In the case in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi , [ 1997 (8) SCC 715 ] , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows : "Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not 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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise. 10. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise. 10. To summarize on the power of review the Court has to consider the following points before reviewing the judgment : a. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. b. A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. c. An error which is not 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 record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. d. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected." e. A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." f. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. g. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. h. Even the change in law or subsequent decisions or a judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 11. No grounds are raised which warrant the exercise of inherent powers of this Court for reviewing the judgment. Accordingly, the present review petition is dismissed without costs. 12. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.