[2025:RJ-JP:31192] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 297/2011 Ram Gopal Sharma Son of Shri Nathu Lal Ji Sharma, aged about 52 years, Resident of C/o Surendra Singh Ji Saraswati Niwas, Gulab Badi, Ajmer (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. 2. Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General of Police, CRPF, New Delhi. 4. Additional D.I.G.P., Group Centre-II, C.R.P.F. Ajmer (Rajasthan) 5. J.A.D. (Pension) PAO, CRPF, New Delhi. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar with Mr. Digvijay Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 12/08/2025 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that earlier, feeling aggrieved by judgment dated 01.04.2009 in D.B. special appeal was preferred by the review petitioner, however, the same was withdrawn with a liberty to approach this Court, by way of filing the review petition. 2. Permission was granted by the Division Bench vide order dated 27.01.2010. 3. Hence, on account of pursuing remedy before the Division Bench some delay has occurred in filing the review [2025:RJ-JP:31192] (2 of 3) [WRW-297/2011] petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application for condonation of delay is allowed. 4. With the consent of both the parties, arguments were also heard on the review petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that while passing judgment dated 01.04.2009, learned Single Judge has given a finding that the respondent-Department could withhold terminal/retiral benefits, only if some judicial inquiry was pending on that day against the petitioner before any Court of law. Learned Single Judge further observes that in the instant case on the date of compulsory retirement i.e. on 16.08.2000, the original petitioner had already been discharged by the Court of Special Judge vide order dated 01.11.1996. Mere filing of the Revision petition cannot be construed to mean pendency of judicial proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that such findings given by learned Single Judge are clearly against the definition of judicial proceedings contained in Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that Section 2(i) of Cr.P.C. defines judicial proceedings as the proceedings in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken on oath. Hence, under such circumstances, the Revision petition filed against the order of discharge are ought to have been taken within the purview of judicial proceedings and the respondent- Government was well within his rights to withhold the benefits. 7. Learned counsel for the review petitioner states that giving such findings in ignorance of the legal provisions would [2025:RJ-JP:31192] (3 of 3) [WRW-297/2011] amount to error on the face of record and therefore, the judgment dated 01.04.2009 is liable to be reviewed and recorded. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the review non-petitioners submits that judgment dated 01.04.2009 has been passed by the learned Single Judge after examining all the facts on record as well as law prevailing at the relevant time. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and its not a case for maintaining the review petition. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. It is settled proposition of law that scope of review petition is very limited and it can be entertained only where a material fact or law, which was already on record, yet left from consideration of the Court while passing the judgment. In the instant case, I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. View taken by the learned Single Judge on the basis of facts and law prevailing at the relevant time, even if erroneous in the opinion of review petitioner, cannot be a ground to seek review of the judgment. 11. In view of light of above discussion, there is no ground for reviewing the order dated 01.04.2009, hence, the review petition filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /6