Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010286222023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Review.Pet./25/2024 UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, NEW DELHI- 110001. 2: THE DIRECTOR GENERAL CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE CISF HEAD QUARTER BLOCK-13 CGO COMPLEX LODHI ROAD NEW DELHI- 110003. 3: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF NEZ HEAD QUARTER KOLKATA WEST BENGAL- 700107. 4: THE SENIOR COMMANDANT CISF UNIT KOPT KOLKATA- 700023 VERSUS SRI HARI MOHAN ROY S/O- LATE ACHINI ROY, LACHIT NAGAR, WARD NO. 3, ABHAYAPURI TOWN, P.O. ABHAYAPURI, DIST.- BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. For the petitioner : Mrs. A. Gayan, Advocate Page No.# 2/3 – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 20-05-2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, C.J.) This review petition is filed by the review petitioners seeking review of the judgment and order dated 07.12.2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in WA 22/2021, which was filed by the non-applicant herein. 2. By the said judgment and order, the Division Bench of this Court reversed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.07.2019 passed in WP(C) No.6282/2015 and remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order of penalty without taking into consideration the past adverse remarks, which are reflected in the Article of Charge-III. The Division Bench also issued direction to the respondents (review petitioners) to reinstate the non-applicant/writ petitioner. It was further directed to treat the period when he was not in service as under suspension and also issued certain ancillary directions. 3. It appears that the review petitioners approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition, being, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s).21804/2023. However, on the date of hearing of the SLP, i.e. 04.07.2023, it was submitted by the counsel for petitioners that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw the SLP and move the High Court in its review jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the said SLP as not pressed while granting liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court in its review jurisdiction. 4. It appears from the order dated 04.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred SLP that the review petitioners sought liberty for filing Page No.# 3/3 review petition on the ground that the High Court had ignored the relevant office memorandum as well as the Constitution Bench judgment which permits consideration of past misconduct for imposing penalty against a delinquent. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners at length and also gone through the grounds for review. 6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners has failed to place any Office Memorandum which permits consideration of past misconduct for imposing penalty against a delinquent in the disciplinary proceedings and has also failed to place any judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court taking a contrary view as has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel, reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314, on which the Division Bench placed reliance while passing the judgment and order under review dated 07.12.2022. 7. Hence, we do not find any merit in this review petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant