[2025:RJ-JP:31784] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 202/2018 Ramesh Chandra Soni since deceased represented by- 1/1 Smt. Chandra Kanta Soni W/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Soni. 1/2 Rajni Kant Soni S/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Soni 1/3 Neetu Soni D/o Late Sh. Ramesh Chandra Soni W/o Bhanu Prakash Soni. All resident of 12/67, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Home Department, Administrative Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Deputy Inspector General of Police (I), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (J-Law, Jhalana Institutional Area Jaipur) 3. Superintendent of Police (II), Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jaipur (Rajasthan) (J-Law, Jhalana Institutional Area Jaipur) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Govind Prasad Kaushik For Respondent(s) : Ms. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. GC Mr. Rohit Tiwari on behalf of Mr. Aditya Singh, Dy. GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 14/08/2025 1. This review petition has been filed for seeking review of judgment dated 15.05.2014 whereby, writ petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of. [2025:RJ-JP:31784] (2 of 3) [WRW-202/2018] 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- applicant submits that in the operative portion while remitting the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority for re-considering the quantum of punishment with the directions that any other penalty except dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement can be awarded by the Disciplinary Authority, one more direction was given that the petitioner shall be deemed to under suspension from the date of earlier penalty of removal dated 13.01.1999 till reinstatement now pursuant to the instant order. He shall also be paid 50% subsistence allowance for the intervening period. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the aforesaid order is causing grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner for the reason that in light of such directions Disciplinary Authority has never passed any order under Rule 54 of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents opposed the review application/petition and submits that there is no manifest error in the order sought to be reviewed, hence, review application cannot be maintained. 5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 6. It is settled proposition of law that review petition can be entertained only in the cases where the review petitioners succeeds in establishing an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. Meticulous examination of judgment under review would make it clear that there was no error on the face of the record and the ground on which review application has been [2025:RJ-JP:31784] (3 of 3) [WRW-202/2018] sought is obviously that, as per review petitioner the directions given by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment dated 15.05.2014 were erroneous. 8. Assuming, the petitioner is aggrieved by such directions, but that cannot be a ground for review. This Court by its judgment dated 15.05.2014 has never restrained the Disciplinary Authority from exercising its power under Rule 54 of Rajasthan Services Rules, 1951. 9. In view of above, no case for review is made out and the application filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. 10. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent Authority in accordance with Rules. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /12