IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (Criminal) No.546 of 2021 Bhajan Singh ......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. …..Respondent Presence: Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mohd. Matloob, learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Khanduri, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. Mr. Shobit Saharia, learned counsel for Respondent No. 4. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the Review Application (MCRC No. 07 of 2025). 2. The present Review Application has been filed by the Applicant/Petitioner - Bhajan Singh, seeking review of the judgment dated 26.08.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Writ Petition No. 546 of 2021, whereby the Writ Petition challenging the Government Order dated 30.09.2020 directing a vigilance inquiry against the petitioner was dismissed. 3. The Applicant/Petitioner contends that this Court, while delivering the said judgment, failed to consider the effect of Regulation 351-A of the Civil Services Regulations, which governs initiation of departmental or judicial 1 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- Ashish Naithani J. proceedings after superannuation, and that non-consideration of the same amounts to an apparent error on the face of the record warranting review. 4. It is submitted that the Applicant/Petitioner retired on 01.10.2020, and therefore ceased to be a public servant. According to the Applicant/Petitioner, no departmental inquiry was instituted against him prior to his retirement, and hence the open vigilance inquiry ordered on 30.09.2020 is without jurisdiction. 5. Learned counsel for the Applicant/Petitioner submits that this Court failed to consider that the events forming the basis of the vigilance inquiry pertain to the years 2014 and 2017, i.e., more than four years prior to the institution of any proceedings, and therefore initiation of vigilance inquiry is barred under the proviso to Regulation 351-A. 6. It is further urged that no sanction of the Governor was obtained for such inquiry and hence the impugned order dated 30.09.2020 ought to have been quashed. 7. Learned Brief Holder for the State, opposing the review, submits that all these grounds were urged and duly considered in the judgment under review. It is further submitted that Regulation 351-A governs departmental proceedings relating to pensionary benefits and not vigilance inquiries under the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, as adopted by the State of Uttarakhand. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the scope of review jurisdiction is well-settled. A review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies only when there is a manifest error apparent on the face of the record or when new and important matter, which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence, is brought to the Court’s notice. 9. In the judgment dated 26.08.2025, this Court had considered in detail the challenge to the Government Order dated 30.09.2020, examined the statutory framework under the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965, 2 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- Ashish Naithani J. and held that the impugned order merely directed initiation of a vigilance inquiry into allegations of corruption and misuse of office. 10. It was observed that such inquiry is a fact-finding process and does not amount to institution of departmental proceedings attracting Regulation 351-A. 11. It was further held that the petitioner’s retirement does not extinguish the power of the State to inquire into acts of corruption allegedly committed during his tenure as a public servant. 12. The plea regarding absence of sanction of the Governor and the alleged time-bar under Regulation 351-A was substantially the same as urged in the original petition and was considered in context. Merely because the Court did not accept the petitioner’s interpretation of the regulation cannot constitute an “error apparent on the face of the record.” 13. The reliance placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court also does not advance the Applicant/Petitioner’s case, as those decisions dealt with the validity of departmental proceedings initiated post-retirement. The present matter concerns a vigilance inquiry under a statutory scheme intended to detect corruption, which stands on a different footing. 14. Furthermore, the Applicant/Petitioner has not shown that the order under review suffers from any patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or misapprehension of fact. What is essentially sought is a reconsideration of the conclusions already drawn, which is beyond the limited ambit of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, read with Article 226 of the Constitution. 15. The grounds urged in the present application were all available and in fact argued at the time of original hearing. This Court had, upon due consideration, found no infirmity in the initiation of vigilance inquiry. The attempt to reopen the same issues under the garb of review cannot be countenanced. 3 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- Ashish Naithani J. 16. Accordingly, no error apparent on the face of the record, nor any other sufficient reason, is made out to warrant interference with the judgment dated 26.08.2025. ORDER For the foregoing reasons, this Review Application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Ashish Naithani J.) 08.10.2025 SB 4 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 546 of 2021, Bhajan Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand and Ors- Ashish Naithani J.