Review jurisdiction cannot rehear the merits absent an apparent error on the record.

The petitioner, formerly an Officer Grade-II with Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank, was dismissed from service in 2014.

After an earlier writ petition resulted in a direction to reconsider his appeal, the appellate authority again rejected it on 10 March 2026.

The petitioner challenged that rejection in W.P. No. 26364 of 2026, which was dismissed by order dated 16 July 2026.

He sought review of that dismissal, alleging, among other things, evidentiary deficiencies, denial of documents, procedural unfairness, unequal punishment, bias, and that the authorities had gone beyond the original charge-sheet

The review petition was heard on 16 October 2026.

Whether the petitioner established discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient ground warranting review

Whether the petitioner’s challenges to the disciplinary inquiry and punishment could be reconsidered in review proceedings as though the Court were hearing an appeal

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure permit review on grounds including discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason

Under Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, review is not an appeal in disguise and does not permit a rehearing of concluded arguments.

State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, explains that an apparent error must be prima facie visible without detailed examination; an erroneous view of law alone is insufficient.

Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, requires a manifest material error that undermines the order’s soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

Under Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, an error requiring reasoning to detect is not an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court considered the petitioner’s complaints about the inquiry, evidence, procedural fairness, comparative punishment, and the appellate authority’s conduct, but found no mistake or error apparent in the order dismissing the writ petition.

The grounds advanced did not establish a recognised basis for review; accepting them would require a rehearing or reassessment of the merits, which review jurisdiction does not permit.

dismissed the review petition as devoid of merit.