ORDER : H.P. SANDESH, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the complainant in CCC No.610/2025, wherein a prayer is sought to initiate contempt proceedings against the accused and to punish them in accordance with law for having wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.25080/2023 connected with Writ Petition No.18983/2024, dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-A), and to pass appropriate orders. 2. Along with this Contempt, Review Petition No.342/2025 is also listed for consideration to review the order passed in Writ Petition No.25080/2023 connected with Writ Petition No.18983/2024, dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure-A), on the ground that the Hon'ble Apex Court has already quashed the order passed by this Court quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against the complainant. It is also contended that the order passed by this Court quashing the departmental enquiry requires to be reviewed consequent upon the order passed by the Apex Court. Both these matters are heard together. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant vehemently contends that he is not disputing the fact that the Apex Court has already passed an order quashing the order of this Court quashing criminal proceedings against the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant also does not dispute the fact that the investigation has been completed and that charge sheet has been filed against the complainant. 4. The learned counsel further vehemently contends that the suspension order was passed on 15.10.2022 and that there was no stay of the said order. It is submitted that the complainant had approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of the suspension order, which was rejected. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.25080/2023, and another Writ Petition No.18983/2024 was also filed challenging the initiation of disciplinary enquiry against the complainant. 5. The learned counsel also submits that this Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order. He does not dispute the fact that, pursuant to the order passed by the Apex Court, the criminal proceedings initiated against the complainant stood revived. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident from paragraph No.57 that this Court took note of the suspension and observed that the same could be considered under Rule 5 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, which permits suspension when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or when a criminal case is under investigation. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident from paragraph No.57 that this Court took note of the suspension and observed that the same could be considered under Rule 5 of the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965, which permits suspension when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or when a criminal case is under investigation. 6. The criminal case initiated against the complainant had earlier been quashed by this Court. However, the respondents had taken the contention that departmental proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings and that such proceedings can proceed irrespective of the quashing of the criminal case. This Court, having taken note of the said submissions, observed that the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal had erroneously interpreted the jurisdictional provisions and the delegation of authority, leading to illegal and unsustainable orders, and found justification in the said contention. Accordingly, this Court held that the impugned order dated 15.10.2022, vide Annexure-A, i.e., the suspension order, was devoid of any reasoning with regard to the complainant's conduct under the Karnataka State Police (Disciplinary Proceedings) Rules, 1965. It was further observed that mere filing of an FIR, which was subsequently quashed, does not constitute legal evidence to justify the complainant's suspension. Having assigned reasons in paragraph No.57, this Court allowed both the writ petition. 7. Now, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners-State, in support of his arguments with respect to the Review Petition, also brings to the notice of this Court, the observations made in paragraph No.57 of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.25080/2023 connected with W.P.No.18983/2024 and contends that Government is going to review the Suspension Order if this Court gives any time bound direction. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the complainant as well as the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners, and having considered the observations made by this Court in paragraph No.57, it is clear that one of the grounds for allowing the writ petition was the quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against the complainant. However, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.4492/2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9629.2024, State of Karnataka vs. Kishore Kumar and another , the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by this Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the complainant has been set aside. 9. However, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No.4492/2024 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.9629.2024, State of Karnataka vs. Kishore Kumar and another , the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by this Court quashing the criminal proceedings against the complainant has been set aside. 9. It is also not in dispute that, pursuant to the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court setting aside the earlier order dated 05.10.2023, the criminal proceedings initiated against the complainant stand revived. The investigation has been completed, and a charge sheet has been filed. It is further important to note that when the suspension order was passed in November 2022, there was no stay operating in respect of the said suspension order, and the suspension of the complainant has continued till date, which led to the initiation of the contempt proceedings based on order passed by this Court which is under review. However, in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court reviving the criminal proceeding, after completion of the investigation, and filing of the charge sheet, there is no justification to keep the complainant under suspension for a period of more than three years. Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal [(2013) 16 SCC 147], wherein it was held that suspension is a precautionary measure to ensure that a delinquent official does not interfere with the proceedings. 10. Given the nature of the allegations and the ongoing investigations, lifting the suspension order, at this stage would be against the interest of justice. But in the case on hand, it is also not in dispute that when investigation is completed and charge sheet is also filed, the question of ensuring that delinquent official does not interfere with the proceeding doesn't come in the way of consideration of suspension order. 11. The investigation has been completed, and the charge sheet has been filed. Even the articles of charge have been framed against the complainant in the departmental enquiry. In such circumstances, the continuation of suspension order against the complainant for years, without following the prescribed procedure, is unsustainable, particularly when there was no stay operating for a substantial period and only an interim stay was granted in January 2025. Even the articles of charge have been framed against the complainant in the departmental enquiry. In such circumstances, the continuation of suspension order against the complainant for years, without following the prescribed procedure, is unsustainable, particularly when there was no stay operating for a substantial period and only an interim stay was granted in January 2025. Even after the writ petition was allowed in March 2025, the suspension order was not revoked. 12. It is also noticed that although the Apex Court had passed an order in November 2024, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court, when the writ petitions were allowed in March 2025. Hence, the review petitioners sought for review of the impugned judgment. Hence, it is just and necessary to analyse Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment .- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review." 13. In the case of Perry Kansagra V. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in AIR 2019 SC (Supp) 122 , the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that, while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. 14. Admittedly, re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. Review is not appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a new view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering the catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the principles of Order XLVII, Rule 1 CPC in the case of S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan and Others reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515 , which reads as under: "(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of 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 the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit." 15. Further, an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 16. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit." 15. Further, an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. 16. In the light of the above, the learned Counsel for the review petitioners contended that Section 114 of CPC empowers a Court to review its order, if the conditions precedent laid down therein are satisfied. The substantive provisions of law does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the Court, except those which are expressly provided in Section 114 of CPC, in terms thereof, Court is empowered to make such order as it feels fit. 17. Admittedly, Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or, when there exists an error apparent of the record, but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reasons. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. and Another v. Assam State Electricity Board and Others , reported in AIR Online 2016 SC 670 , has observed that the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited. Under the guise of review, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate and re-argue questions which have already been addressed and decided. Thus, 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 XLVII Rule 1 CPC. 19. Applying the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we have perused the findings given by this Court in W.P.No.25080/2023 c/w W.P.No.18983/2024 disposed on 10.03.2025, wherein this Court at para-57 observed that "the criminal case which was initiated against the petitioner came to be quashed by this Court." However, the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by this Court dated 05.10.2023, hence the criminal proceedings initiated against the complainant stand revived. Now the investigation is completed and a charge sheet has been filed. These factual aspects was not brought to the notice of this Court while deciding the aforesaid writ petitions. Hence, this Court passed impugned order, quashing the departmental enquiry initiated against the complainant, which is apparently an error. If the same is brought to the notice of this Court earlier, the result would be different. 20. In this case, the review petitioners have made out grounds that there are errors in the judgment. In view of the subsequent developments and the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Review Petition deserves to be allowed, and accordingly, the order dated 10.03.2025 in W.P.No.25080/2023 connected with W.P.No.18983/2024 passed by this Court is set aside by reviewing the same in view of discussion made above. 21. However, considering that the complainant has remained under suspension for more than three years, the Government is directed to revoke the Suspension Order forthwith, without prejudice to continuation of the departmental enquiry. The Government is at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law. The Government is directed to reinstate him within one week from the date of this order. 22. In view of the above directions, the question of consideration of contempt proceedings does not arise, and accordingly, the contempt proceeding is dropped as become infructuous in view of reviewing of the earlier judgment.