Review Petition maintainable when judgment proceeds on factual error regarding non-appointment of Presenting Officer in departmental inquiry.

The State of Madhya Pradesh filed a Review Petition against the order dated 20.01.2026 passed in Writ Appeal No. 45/2026, which had dismissed the State's appeal

The original dismissal was based on the finding that the departmental enquiry against the respondent was illegal due to the non-appointment of a Presenting Officer

The State sought condonation of a 35-day delay in filing the review, citing procedural formalities and the time taken for legal opinions from the Advocate General and Law Department

The State contended that a Presenting Officer (SHO, P.S. Kotwali Morena) had actually been appointed via an order dated 30.06.2013, a fact that was not properly placed during the Writ Appeal

1. Whether the delay of 35 days in filing the Review Petition should be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

2. Whether there exists an "error apparent on the face of the record" regarding the appointment of a Presenting Officer to warrant a review of the order dated 20.01.2026

The court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act regarding the condonation of delay, emphasizing that "sufficiency of cause" is the primary consideration

It relied on precedents from the Hon'ble Apex Court, including Motilal Songara v. Prem Praksh alias Pappu (2013) and Sheo Raj Singh v. Union of India (2023), which govern the condonation of procedural delays by the State

Regarding the merits of the review, the court applied the principle that a judicial order may be recalled if based on a factual misconception—specifically, the erroneous assumption that the Enquiry Officer acted as a prosecutor in the absence of a Presenting Officer

The court first addressed the limitation issue, determining that the State had shown sufficient cause for the 35-day delay caused by departmental bureaucracy

On the merits, the court examined the departmental enquiry records (Annexure RP-2). It found that, contrary to the findings in the Writ Appeal, a Presenting Officer had indeed been appointed and had presented the prosecution's case

The court observed that the Enquiry Officer’s questioning of the delinquent employee reached only toward "elucidating the truth" regarding unauthorized absence, similar to a statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., rather than acting as a prosecutor

Since the Writ Appeal was dismissed on the mistaken factual premise that the enquiry was procedurally void for lack of a Presenting Officer, the court found it necessary to allow the review to prevent a miscarriage of justice

The court allowed the Review Petition. The order dated 20.01.2026 in WA No. 45/2026 was recalled, and the Writ Appeal was restored to its original file for fresh hearing on the grounds raised