Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue issues absent an apparent error or genuinely new evidence.

The petitioner, a government servant, was subjected to disciplinary proceedings for allegedly remaining unauthorisedly absent from duty on the night of 09.09.2017, leaving the Court and Office of the Nayadhikari, Gram Nyayalaya, Semiliguda, and proceeding to Koraput without permission.

The charge also alleged breach of integrity, decorum of conduct and devotion to duty under Rule 3 of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959.

After an inquiry in which the petitioner was given an opportunity of hearing, the charge was found proved.

The disciplinary authority imposed penalties including withholding five annual increments with cumulative effect, treating the suspension period as suspension, considering the proceeding in future or pending proceedings, and treating the absence as unauthorised.

The appellate authority dismissed the petitioner’s appeal, and the decision was communicated on 16.08.2022.

The petitioner challenged both orders in W.P.(C) No. 23780 of 2022.

By order dated 11.08.2023, the High Court modified the punishment relating to suspension by directing that the suspension period be treated as dies non without break in service.

The petitioner thereafter filed the present review petition under Order XLVII CPC, contending that the suspension period ought to have been treated as duty because he had allegedly attended office during that period in connection with another disciplinary proceeding.

The review petition was filed with a reported delay of 407 days; an application for condonation of delay was also filed.

Whether the delay of 407 days in filing the review petition ought to be condoned on the ground of financial difficulty and the petitioner’s alleged filing of an SLP before the Supreme Court?

Whether the order dated 11.08.2023 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter, or any other sufficient reason warranting review under Order XLVII CPC?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to have the suspension period treated as duty rather than dies non without break in service?

The Court applied Order XLVII CPC, under which review is confined to discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

An error apparent must be a patent and manifest error, not merely an erroneous decision or a conclusion requiring a long process of reasoning; a review cannot function as an appeal.

The Court relied on Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. Sri Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 376, for the proposition that, although the High Court’s review jurisdiction is generally affected after an appeal is preferred or an SLP is converted into an appeal, a review remains maintainable where the SLP was dismissed in limine without reasons.

It also relied on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, and Kishore Biswal v. Union of India, Review Petition No. 83 of 2025, decided on 30.01.2026, reiterating the narrow scope of review.

The underlying misconduct was governed by Rule 3 of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959.

The Court found that the explanation for the 407-day delay was inadequate.

Although the petitioner cited financial difficulties and referred to an SLP, he did not disclose the date of its disposal or annex the Supreme Court’s order.

Nevertheless, following the principle in Khoday Distilleries, the Court presumed that the SLP had been dismissed in limine and considered the review petition in the interest of justice.

On merits, however, the petitioner merely reiterated grounds already raised in the writ petition and sought reconsideration of the proportionality of the suspension-related penalty.

The Court held that the petitioner neither demonstrated a patent error in the order dated 11.08.2023 nor established the discovery of new and important evidence that could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence.

The additional affidavit and assertion that the petitioner had attended office during the suspension period did not satisfy the strict requirements of review jurisdiction, particularly as the contention involved reconsideration of the merits rather than correction of an apparent error.

While the Court entertained the delayed review petition on the assumption that the petitioner’s SLP had been dismissed in limine, it found the petition meritless because it disclosed neither an error apparent on the face of the record nor any newly discovered material or analogous sufficient reason.

Accordingly, I.A. No. 391 of 2024 seeking condonation of delay and RVWPET No. 266 of 2024 were dismissed without any order as to costs.