2025:JHHC:16613-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Review No.75 of 2024 ------ Harish Mohan, aged about 56 years, son of Late Jagdish Prasad Sinha, resident of Flat No.5-A, Sharda Apartment, Shivaji Park, P.O. Hehal, P.S. Sukhdeonagar, District, Ranchi …. …. Respondent/Petitioner Versus 1. Central University of Jharkhand, through its Registrar, P.O Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 2. Executive Council, Central University of Jharkhand, through its Chairman-Cum-Vice Chancellor, Central University of Jharkhand, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District-Ranchi. .... .... Appellants/Opposite Parties. 3. Prof. Nand Kumar Yadav ‘Indu’, son of not known, the then Vice Chancellor, Central University of Jharkhand, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 4. Prof. Ratan Kumar Dey, Son of not known, the then Professor of Applied Chemistry and the then Registrar (I/c), Central University of Jharkhand, P.O. Brambe, P.S. Mandar, District Ranchi. 5. Lt. Cdr. Ujjawal Kumar (Retd.), Son of Sri Upendra Prasad Sah, resident of DQAQ, QAE (Naval), DGQA Complex, Opp. Ordnance Club, Commissioner Road, Hastings, P.O. and P.S. Hastings, Kolkata .... .... Performa Respondents/Opposite Parties. CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI ------ For the Petitioner : In Person For the Resp.-University : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Ms. Shivani Bhardwaj, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Resp. No.5 : Mr. Yashvardhan, Advocate Mr. Kirtivardhan, Advocate Mr. Ritesh Singh, Advocate 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 2 ------ 05/Dated: 23.06.2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. Prayer 1. The instant review petition has been filed for seeking review/modification/recall of the judgment dated 16.05.2024 passed in L.P.A. No.601 of 2022, whereby and whereunder, while quashing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, has remitted the matter before the enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry proceeding afresh. Factual Matrix 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, requires to be enumerated, which read as under: - 3. It is the case of the review petitioner that he was appointed as Deputy Registrar by the Central University of Jharkhand vide CUJ letter no. CUJ/Recruitment Cell/26/2011/5308 dated 18.11.2011 and joined the said post on 15.12.2011. 4. The review petitioner came to know that the respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein, are the co-accused in a criminal case of sexual harassment lodged by a tribal married Assistant Professor of Human Rights in CUJ, which was registered as SC/ST Police Station Ranchi Case No. 11/17 dated 08.05.2017 which had direct linkage with the review petitioner. In arbitrary and whimsical manner, the review petitioner was discharged from services w.e.f. 14.09.2013 vide order dated 16.09.2013. 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 3 5. The petitioner challenged the order of discharge by filing W.P.(S) No. 6186 of 2013 which was allowed vide order dated 19.02.2016 by quashing the order of discharge with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service. In pursuance of the said direction, the review petitioner was reinstated in service. 6. Thereafter, the review petitioner protested against the constitution of 3rd Executive Council of the Central University of Jharkhand by the respondent no.2 wherein the respondent no.3, namely, Ratan Kumar Deywas appointed as member as the Registrar of the University. On 09.02.2017, the writ petitioner preferred W.P.(S) No. 892 of 2017 for declaring the amended Statute 11 of the Act as ultra vires and consequently to quash the constitution of 2nd and 3rd Executive Council of the University as well as the appointment of respondent no.2 as Vice Chancellor of the University. 7. Thereafter, respondents stopped the salary of the petitioner since December, 2016 and denied the upgradation, against which, the writ petitioner, review petitioner herein, preferred writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2011 of 2017. 8. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 23.05.2017 has placed the review petitioner under suspension which was extended thrice as also the subsistence allowance during the suspension period had not been released. Later, on 21.06.2017, the subsistence allowance was ordered to be 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 4 released in favour of the petitioner. But, respondents did not release the subsistence allowance till July, 2017 and only on 29.07.2017, the same was released. 9. The departmental enquiry proceeded in which communication was made to the review petitioner but due to financial stringency the petitioner could not respond to the same and vide letter dated 08.09.2017, the writ petitioner/review petitioner was directed to submit written statement of defence against MoC (Memorandum of Charge) dated 24.07.2017 failing which, ex-parte proceeding will be initiated. 10. The petitioner replying the said letter vide letter dated 19.09.2017, denied the allegation enclosing his earlier written reply dated 03.08.2017 and requested to pass speaking order on reply dated 09.08.2017 but no reply had been received by the review petitioner. 11. Thereafter, without passing any speaking order, another departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner levelling the charge that he has instigated an Assistant Professor of Human Rights, namely, Mrs. Shilpi Hembrom to lodge FIR against the performa respondents, respondent no.3 & 4 herein. 12. Thereafter, on 03.04.2018, vide order dated 03.04.2017, the review petitioner came to know that an enquiry is being held against the writ petitioner/review petitioner appointing an 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 5 enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the writ petitioner. Thereafter, on 26.04.2018, two more disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner/review petitioner and while replying to the MoCs, the review petitioner/ writ petitioner informed that it is not possible for him to participate in any departmental proceeding due to financial stringency. 13. Thereafter, without disposing of the representation dated 29.04.2018, vide order dated 03.05.2018, another enquiry was initiated in which response was given to the Registrar’s letter dated 10.05.2018. 14. Subsequent thereto, vide memo dated 13.07.2018, it was informed to the petitioner that the authority is duty bound to enquire into the charges framed against the petitioner and to hold ex-parte enquiry from 16.07.2018 on day-to-day basis. 15. The review petitioner/writ petitioner was informed thereafter that the charges framed vide MoC dated 08.12.2017 or 2nd MoC dated 08.12.2017 were approved by the Executive Council in its meeting dated 20.04.2018 and thereafter, the charges were served to him vide memo dated 26.04.2018. 16. Thereafter, the enquiry proceeded ex-parte and presenting officer was directed to produce evidence. Subsequently, the enquiry proceeded. 17. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the review petitioner/writ 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 6 petitioner, preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4691 of 2018 which has been allowed by quashing and setting aside the enquiry report as also the order of punishment dated 24.10.2018 with a direction to extend all consequential benefits to the writ petitioner immediately, against which the present appeal has been filed by the Central University of Jharkhand. 18. It is evident from the factual aspect based upon the pleading made as referred hereinabove that the review petitioner/writ petitioner while working as Deputy Registrar was subjected to departmental proceeding by framing the charge. 19. The review petitioner was called upon by the enquiry officer but he has not participated in the enquiry and the enquiry has been set at ex-parte. The enquiry officer has submitted the enquiry report finding the charge proved against the review petitioner. The disciplinary authority has imposed the punishment of dismissal from service against which the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4691 of 2018 had been preferred. 20. The ground had been taken therein that the enquiry officer has failed to discharge his quasi-judicial power in the manner in which the same was to be followed, i.e., the document has not been exhibited rather based upon the oral evidence/statement, the enquiry has been concluded in which the charge has been found to be proved and based upon that, the order of dismissal was passed. 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 7 21. The respondents had been called upon by the learned Single Judge wherein the plea was taken that the proceeding has been set as ex-parte and once the delinquent employee has chosen not to appear, he cannot be allowed to take advantage of the violation of principles of natural justice. 22. Further, ground was taken that the documents were produced by the presenting officer which was taken note by the enquiry officer and thereafter, the charge has been found to be proved. 23. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 and State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 has found the enquiry report to be in violation of principles of natural justice and as such, the entire enquiry report has been held to be illegal and in consequence thereof, order of dismissal has also been held to be illegal, accordingly, quashed and set aside, against which, the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.601 of 2022 has been filed by the University but the same has been disposed of by quashing the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is the subject matter of the instant review petition. 24. The review petitioner, after having participated in the departmental proceeding when punished with the punishment of 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 8 dismissal from service, has filed the aforesaid writ petition on the ground that the order of dismissal has been passed ex-parte. 25. The learned Single Judge of this Court has passed an order by quashing the order of dismissal. The Respondent-University has preferred the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.601 of 2022. 26. The ground has been taken that notice was given by departmental authority as also to participate in the proceeding but the writ petitioner, review petitioner herein has willfully not participated in the enquiry proceeding after service of notice upon him, as such, the enquiry was set as ex-parte and concluded by passing an order of dismissal. 27. The fact has been demonstrated before the appellate court with respect to service of notice said to be served upon the petitioner effectively and in consequence of non-appearance, the enquiry officer has set the proceeding as ex-parte. 28. The Division Bench of this Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact, has interfered with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. This Court, however, has passed an order by quashing the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter for passing order afresh by the enquiry officer but instead of doing so, an order of dismissal has been quashed and set aside, therefore, on technicality no one can be allowed to take advantage and that is the reason, while interfering with the 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 9 judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, the matter was remitted before the enquiry officer to conduct the proceeding afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to the review petitioner. 29. The said order has been sought to be reviewed by filing the instant review petition. Argument advanced by the review petitioner (In Person) 30. It has been contended by the party-in person that the notice has not been served upon him and as such, whatever has been stated on behalf of the appellant, the respondent herein is contrary to the record. Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent- appellant (Central University) 31. While, on the other hand, Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel for the respondent-appellant has submitted that notice was served upon him and thereafter, he has chosen not to appear which has been taken note by this Court while deciding the Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.601 of 2022 as referred at paragraph-16 of the order dated 16.05.2024. Even otherwise also, since the matter has been remitted before the enquiry officer that itself means that effective opportunity of hearing is to be given to the review petitioner and that is the reason, while quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherein, the order was passed without remitting the matter for conducting enquiry afresh so as to conclusive end is to be given 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 10 to the enquiry proceeding but having not remitted the matter, the Division Bench of this Court has considered the same as error on the part of the learned Single Judge and that led the Division Bench of this Court, while deciding the appeal to quash the order passed by the learned Single Judge and in consequence thereof, the matter was remitted for passing a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing, so that, the review petitioner may not be prejudiced in any way and the principle of natural justice as the ground has been taken before the learned Single Judge, be complied with in its letter and spirit. 32. It has been contended that even after remitting the matter, the petitioner was not appearing and creating a very peculiar situation in holding the departmental proceeding at hold. 33. It has further been contended that notice was issued upon the review petitioner on 28.02.2025 but the petitioner has given response thereto on 02.04.2025 stating therein that he is no longer an employee and as such, there is no jurisdiction lies with the respondent to issue notice upon him. 34. It has also been contended that the said conduct of the review petitioner is totally derogatory and not only that, it is also contrary to the order passed by this Court, wherein, at paragraph-37, this Court has directed the petitioner to co-operate in the enquiry and the enquiry officer is also directed to act as a quasi-judicial functionary. 35. The submission therefore has been made that it is not a fit case 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 11 to entertain for the purpose of review of the said order, rather, the instant review petition has been filed only to delay the matter on one ground or the other. Analysis 36. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleading made in the review petition along with the grounds taken therein. 37. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of the parties, needs to refer herein the underlying principle under which the power of review is to be exercised. 38. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., [AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under: “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 12 39. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India, (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the Court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: “12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ….. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 40. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 13 (i) Discovery of new and important0 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 Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto 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 v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.,. 20.2. 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.” 41. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 14 face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 42. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference of the judgments made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only be made if the new fact has come which could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose (supra). 43. It is evident that while power of review may be inherent in the High Court to review its own order passed in a writ petition, the same has to be exercised on well-recognised and established grounds on which judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be exercised on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the parties seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order was made. 44. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as permissible grounds of review. 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 15 45. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 46. 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’. 47. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 48. Further, the law is well settled that a review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 16 case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit 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”.” 49. Similarly, in S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 17 has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon 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. (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.” 50. In the recent judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362, the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C., has been laid down the proposition to entertain the review, as has been held at paragraph-16.1 to 16.7, which reads as under:- “16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. 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. 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 18 16.3. 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 e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. 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.—" 51. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law, we are now proceeding with the merit of the instant petition. 52. The foremost ground which has been taken on behalf of the review petitioner is that no notice was issued upon him by the enquiry officer to participate in the proceeding and that has been made as a ground to review the order passed by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.601 of 2022. 53. We have considered the judgment sought to be reviewed. 54. It is evident from the impugned judgment that Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel, engaged by the review petitioner has argued the case at length which has been taken note at paragraph-10 of the impugned judgment, for ready reference, the same is being quoted as under:- 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 19 “10. Mr. Kaushik Sarkhel, learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent while defending the impugned order has taken the following grounds: (i) The argument has been advanced that even accepting that the delinquent employee, the writ petitioner, had not appeared before the enquiry officer then also it was incumbent upon the enquiry officer while exercising the power of quasi-judicial functionary to follow the principle which was to be followed in proving the charge but merely on the basis of the document placed by the presenting officer, the charge has been found to be proved, hence, duty which has been discharged by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be of a quasi- judicial functionary. (ii) The learned Single Judge, based upon the aforesaid ground, has quashed and set aside the impugned order of dismissal along with the enquiry report, as such, the same suffers from no error. (iii) The learned counsel has submitted in course of argument that apart from the issue of violation of principles of natural justice, other grounds have been taken i.e., jurisdictional error, etc.” 55. It is evident from the aforesaid argument that the ground of violation of principle of natural justice has also been taken as also the jurisdictional error. 56. Argument, in response, was made by the learned counsel for the appellant-University on the issue of jurisdictional error, the same according to the learned counsel for the respondent, review petitioner herein, cannot be allowed to be agitated since there is no reference to that effect in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 57. The review petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 20 learned Single Judge by taking the ground that the issue of jurisdictional error has not been taken into consideration. 58. Learned counsel for the Pvt. Respondent while adopting the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant-University has submitted that on technicality, no advantage can be given to a wrong doer, rather, if the enquiry has been initiated, the same is to reach to a logical end. 59. It has been contended that here the writ petitioner has intentionally not appeared before the enquiry officer and if he would have appeared before the enquiry officer, the point would have been taken but after not appearing, the writ petitioner want to take advantage of lacuna said to be committed in the enquiry proceeding which is not at all permissible to be agitated by the writ petitioner, for ready reference, paragraph-11, 12 & 13 of the impugned judgment are being referred as under:- “Response by the learned counsel for the Appellant: 11. Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant- University has submitted that so far as the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the writ petitioner to the effect that the other grounds like that of jurisdictional error has been taken, the same cannot be allowed to be agitated since there is no reference to that effect in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Further, the respondent-writ petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge so far as non-consideration of the grounds is concerned. Argument on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents: 12. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel for the private respondent adopting the argument advanced on 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 21 behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that on technicality, no advantage can be given to a wrong doer rather if the enquiry has been initiated, the same is to reach to a logical end. 13. Herein, it is the writ petitioner who has intentionally has not appeared before the enquiry officer and if he would have appeared before the enquiry officer, the point would have been taken but now after not appearing, the writ petitioner want to take advantage of lacuna said to be committed in the enquiry proceeding which is not at all permissible to be agitated by the writ petitioner.” 60. This Court has taken note by inserting the memorandum of charge as is evident from paragraph-15 of the impugned judgment, for ready reference, paragraph-15 is being quoted and referred hereinbelow:- “Charge no.1 1. Shri Harish Mohan is in the habit of disobeying orders /instructions conveyed to him from time to time. Shri Harish Mohan has been challenging since long the authority of Head and the Vice Chancellor of the University. The Vice Chancellor constituted a Fact Finding Committee vide Office Order No. CUJ/R/2016/02/269(A) dated 01.10.2016 to inquire into the matter related to drowning of two students of the University. Shri Harish Mohan, Dy. Registrar was one of the members of the said Committee. 2. Shri Harish Mohan vide his email dated 25.10.2016 informed the Registrar that he was withdrawing from the Committee citing the reason that only authorities of the University could constitute any standing or special Committee under Statute 21(a) of the CU Act, 2009 and further alleged that such a constitution of the Committee was invalid in the eyes of law. 3. It is mentioned here that as per Statute 11(3) of the CU Act, 2009, "the Vice-Chancellor may, if he is of the opinion that immediate action is necessary on any matter, exercise any power conferred on any authority of the University by or under this Act and shall report to such authority at its next meeting the action taken by him on such matter." 4. It is also mentioned that the Committee was simply a fact finding committee and not any standing or special committee. 5. It may not be out of place to mention that the Vice Chancellor constituted another fact finding committee vide Office Order No. CUJ/Reg/3969/28.03.2016 dated 28.03.2016 to examine the 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 22 lapses in organizing the Sardar Patel Birth Anniversary celebrations held on 17- 19 march, 2016 wherein Shri Harish Mohan was one of the Committee members. He not only took part in the proceedings of the Committee but also submitted the report under his signature. 6. The said conduct of Shri Harish Mohan amounts to a conduct which is destructive of smooth & cohesive functioning of the University. The acts and omissions constitute misconduct of gross dereliction of duty, wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful order of his superior and conduct unbecoming of an employee of the University under Rule 3(1)(ii), (iii) & (xix) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with GID (23)(1), (4) below Rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge no.2 1. It has been reported that Shri Harish Mohan, Deputy Registrar, Central University of Jharkhand comes to office only off and on and never sign the attendance register despite the fact that he has been directed/advised by a general office order dated 31.01.2017 and 10.02.2017 and by a communication dated 06.12.2016 and 15.12.2016 addressed to him individually. 2. It is mentioned that except Shri Harish Mohan every one is signing the Attendance Register. Even the officer of his rank and other Group 'A' officers are also signing the attendance register. 3. The said conduct of Shri Harish Mohan amounts to misconduct of not maintaining courteous and good behavior with superior office, wilful insubordination and disobedience of lawful order of his superior and a conduct unbecoming of an employee of the University under Rule 3(1)(ii), (iii) & (xix) and 3A of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with GID (23)(1) and (8) below Rule 3- C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge no.3 1. Shri Harish Mohan issued an Experience Certificate to Dr. Satish Kumar, ex-Associate Professor of the University giving various details including the UG/PG classes being taken by him. The said Experience Certificate has been issued without any approval of the Competent Authority of the University. Shri Harish Mohan has not been delegated the power to issue any such certificate. 2. The said act of Shri Harish Mohan shows gross dereliction of duties and violates the established practice of the University and unbecoming of an employee of the University under Rule 3(1)(ii), (iii) & (xviii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with GID 23(9) below the Rule 3-C of CCS Conduct Rules, 1964. Charge no.4 1. Shri Harish Mohan vide his note dated 15.05.2013 alleged the complete failure of constitutional machinery in the University due to the fact that the University had appointed 42 staff on 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 23 contract without following any rule. 2. Shri Akash Verma figured in the list of 42 contractual staff who were identified as persons having been appointed in gross violation of rules and norms. Shri Harish Mohan recommended the extension of the contract of Shri Akash Verma for 11 months in his note dated 19.08.2016. 3. As such it seems his decision making process is transitory in nature whereas it is expected that an officer holding a senior rank of Dy. Registrar shall judge all cases coming under his purview with unwavering uniformity and equity. 4. A decision or opinion making process involves application of mind and in case the decision is revisited by the same official a complete opposite decision/opinion is being formed without logical and lawfully convincing explanation justifying the revision in stand, it amounts to gross irregularity in discharge of official duties. 5. The above act of Shri Harish Mohan shows lack of professionalism and consistency in his decision making and unbecoming of an employee of the University and further, his act amounts to misconduct under Rule 3(1)(ii), (iii), (xvi) & (xxi) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with GID 23(2) below the Rule 3-C of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Charge no.5 1. Shri Harish Mohan misled the Senior Officers of the University in his note with regard to probation of the staff. He, vide his note dated 7.9.2016, submitted that the provision of probation made for the employees of the University might be made inoperative and all the persons appointed by the University appointed against sanctioned regular posts of the University might be declared regular employees of the University. 2. It is mentioned that the non-teaching staff are recruited in the University in accordance with the Cadre Recruitment Rules of the University which has a provision of probation. 3. It is further mentioned that as per Ordinance OC-9, "the employees as referenced to (1) above shall be placed under probation for a period of 2 years or 1 year as the case may be. On successful completion of their probation period they shall be confirmed as per criteria laid down by Govt. of India for the purpose." 4. As per the guidelines for framing / amendment / relaxation of Recruitment Rules issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, PG & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training vide OM No. Β.14017/48/2010-Estt. (RR). dated 31.12.2010, provision of probation has to be made in the Recruitment Rules. 5. The above mentioned act of Shri Harish Mohan exemplifies gross dereliction of duties in terms of misleading the superior 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 24 officers of the University and badly failing to discharge his duties with dignity and propriety in terms of law. The said act of Shri Harish Mohan amounts to intentional attempt to disrupt the smooth functioning of the University and prejudicially affecting the atmosphere of the University thereby violating Rule 3(1)(ii) & (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 read with GID 23 (1), (4), (9) of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964. Charge no.6 1. It has been reported that Shri Harish Mohan concealed the fact that he was receiving Dearness Relief on his pension from his erstwhile employer while simultaneously receiving Dearness allowance along with his regular salary from the University. 2. The audit party has also made an audit para in this regard in their Audit note submitted to the University. 3. Receiving Dearness Relief along with pension by a re- employed pensioner is contrary to the Rule 55- A of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972. 4. The above act of Harish Mohan shows lack of accountability and transparency on his part and unbecoming of an employee of the University under Rule 3(1)(ii) (iii), (vi) and (ix). 5. The said act and omission of Shri Harish Mohan referred to in para (1) above also amounts gross moral misconduct under GID 23(4) below the Rule 3-C of the CCS Conduct Rules 1964.” 61. This Court has further considered that the enquiry officer has issued notice. The said notice was received but the review petitioner has chosen not to appear. The enquiry officer has communicated about the proceeding of enquiry but as has been stated that on each and every date, communication was given by the writ petitioner to the enquiry officer through e-mail that he will not appear. The enquiry has been set at ex-parte, for ready reference, the relevant part of the said order as referred at paragraph-16 is being quoted as under:- “16. The writ petitioner was subjected to enquiry. The enquiry officer has issued notice. He has received the notice but chosen not to appear. The enquiry officer has communicated about the proceeding of the enquiry 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 25 but as has been stated that on each and every date, communication was given by the writ petitioner to the enquiry officer through e-mail that he will not appear. The enquiry has been set at ex-parte. The charge has been found to be proved and as such, the same was referred to the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority, on acceptance of the same, has imposed punishment vide order dated 24.10.2018. …... ….. …..” 62. This Court, on consideration of the averment brought on record on behalf of the appellant-University and on its perusal has found that the fact about enquiry which was communicated to the petitioner, had been responded by the writ petitioner, sent through e-mail stating that he will not appear and thereafter, the enquiry has been set as ex-parte. 63. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact, has come with the conclusion that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter of proceeding said to be in violation of principle of natural justice in a case where the delinquent employee if chosen not to appear after receipt of the notice, rather, communicated the enquiry officer not to appear in the enquiry proceeding. 64. This Court, in consequence of the aforesaid conduct of the writ petitioner, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby and whereunder, direction has been given to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the writ petitioner immediately, by remitting the matter from the stage of enquiry to the conduct the enquiry afresh with a further direction upon the review petitioner to co-operate in the enquiry 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 26 and the enquiry officer is also directed to act as a quais-judicial functionary, for ready reference, paragraph-34, 35, 36 and 37 are being referred herein, which reads as under:- “34. This Court had gone across the consideration made by the learned Single Judge so far as it relates to quashing of the enquiry report and the order of dismissal dated 24.10.2018 on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and based upon the reason as referred hereinabove as also taking into consideration that the enquiry which has been commenced has to come to the logical end, as such, is of the view that the matter ought to have been remitted before the enquiry officer from the stage of enquiry to be conducted afresh. 35. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the part of the order, whereby and whereunder, direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the writ petitioner immediately, is hereby quashed and set aside. 36. This Court, in view thereof, remit the matter from the stage of enquiry to conduct the proceeding afresh. 37. The petitioner is directed to co-operate in the enquiry and the enquiry officer is also directed to act as a quasi-judicial functionary.” 65. The party-in-person, the review petitioner has submitted that the said notice has not been served upon him, but, no such ground has been agitated under the grounds for seeking review of the said order and there is no denial of the fact as has been referred at paragraph-16 of the impugned judgment, wherein, notice has been accepted by the writ petitioner but instead of putting appearance before the enquiry officer, the communication has been made through e-mail not to participate in the enquiry. 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 27 66. The question of violation of principle of natural justice therefore, has been considered to be not applicable on the basis of aforesaid conduct of the review petitioner, reason being that, if the notice has not been issued, then the matter would have been different but once the notice has been issued and the same has been accepted by the delinquent officer and in a response, he has stated that he will not appear, then in such circumstances, it cannot be said that there is violation of principle of natural justice on the principle that a wrong doer cannot be allowed to take its advantage. 67. However, considering the issue for effective logical conclusion of the enquiry proceeding, this Court has quashed the order passed by the learned Single Judge interfering with the order of punishment along with the direction to extend all the consequential benefits by remitting the matter from the stage of enquiry to conduct the enquiry afresh. 68. Such direction has been passed on consideration of the settled position of law that the learned Single Judge ought to have taken into consideration that on technicality no body can be allowed to take advantage as the order passed by the learned Single Judge accepting the ground of the writ petitioner/review petitioner of violation of principle of natural justice by not giving any notice but even in such circumstances, the learned Single Judge ought to have remitted the matter before the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer for conclusion of the enquiry in order to come to its 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 28 logical end. Otherwise, if on the technicality, any advantage would have been given, then the purpose for which, the charges have been framed will remain inconclusive without coming to the logical end. 69. This Court, considering the aforesaid parameter, has quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter from the stage of enquiry to conduct the enquiry afresh with a direction to the petitioner to co-operate in the enquiry so that the enquiry be concluded at an early date. 70. But, as has been informed on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondents that again the same modus operandi has been adopted by the review petitioner by not participating in the enquiry proceeding, even though, the enquiry officer has issued notice on 25.02.2025 but the response was given on that notice on 02.04.2025 that since he is no more an employee of the University, hence, there is no authority to issue notice. 71. This Court, considers the said conduct of the review petitioner, to be contrary to the direction passed by this Court at paragraph-37 which was passed in presence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 72. This Court, on consideration of the aforesaid fact and coming to the law settled to exercise the power of review, as has been held in the judgment referred above, wherein, the power of review can be exercised if there is any error apparent on the face of the record or the document could not have been produced in spite of 2025:JHHC:16613-DB 29 due diligence. 73. It is also settled that review cannot be entertained, if filed, in the garb of appeal. 74. This Court, on the basis of the grounds agitated and discussed hereinabove, is of the view that the same cannot be said to be reviewed in the eyes of law, rather, it is in the garb of appeal. Further, the parameter to exercise the power of review as per the discussion made above, is not available, hence, the present review petition is fit to be dismissed. 75. In the result, the instant review petition fails and is dismissed. 76. In consequent to dismissal of this petition, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Arun Kumar Rai, J.) Rohit/-A.F.R.