Review jurisdiction cannot reopen merits absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

The appellant, a retired judicial officer appointed Presiding Officer of DRT-II, Chandigarh, challenged his suspension, the extension of his suspension, the chargesheet and the appointment of the Inquiry Officer in writ petitions.

The Single Judge dismissed the petitions, and the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding that the challenges to the suspension and its extension had become infructuous after the appellant’s removal from service.

The appellant sought review, alleging, among other things, that the Court had overlooked his written submissions and his claim to enhanced subsistence allowance, and had failed to address the consequences of his removal order and his challenges to the chargesheet.

The removal order was separately under challenge before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

Whether the appellant established an error apparent on the face of the record by alleging that the appeal judgment failed to consider material pleadings, written submissions and the claim for enhanced subsistence allowance.

Whether the finding that challenges to the suspension and its extension became infructuous after the removal order, including the treatment of the order dated 26 November 2025, warranted review.

Whether the appellant could reopen in review the merits of the chargesheet challenge or contend that the appeal judgment gave inadequate reasons.

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permits review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence that could not, despite due diligence, have been produced earlier, or on an error apparent on the face of the record.

An apparent error must be self-evident and discernible without elaborate reasoning; review is not an appeal and cannot be used to reassess the merits or substitute one possible view for another.

The Court also relied on Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147, for the principle that suspension pending inquiry is an interim measure intended to facilitate the disciplinary proceedings.

The judgment noted that the truth of charges ordinarily cannot be examined under Article 226 and that the chargesheet challenge had been decided on the merits by the Single Judge and affirmed in the appeal.

The Court found no apparent error in the appeal judgment’s treatment of the issues: it had considered whether the suspension-related challenges survived removal and was not required to address each submission separately once it concluded those challenges were infructuous.

The subsistence-allowance contention formed part of the challenge to the extension order, but the appellant had not sought specific relief for enhancement of the allowance; the Court therefore treated that incidental claim as infructuous along with the challenge to the extension.

The removal order concluded the inquiry and was separately challenged, so seeking separate reconsideration of the suspension orders amounted to an attempt to revisit the appeal’s merits.

The order of 26 November 2025 merely recorded the appellant’s position and did not decide that the suspension challenges survived removal.

The remaining arguments concerned matters already decided on the merits or the adequacy of the Court’s reasoning; neither supplied a ground for review.

It dismissed Review Petition No. 469/2026, with no order as to costs.