Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by learned Single Bench
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.01.10 17:53:18 +0530 2025:CGHC:1633-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 906 of 2024 Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Sawailal Singh Aged About 58 Years R/o Ward No, 21, Behind New Gali Mandi Amba Sidhi Mp,486661 ...Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Department of Water Resource And Development (Wrd) Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Engineer In Chief Water Resources Department Sihawa Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Engineer Water Resource Department Hasdev Kachhar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 4 - Executive Engineer Irrigation Division, Marwahi, District, Gaurela- Pendra-Marwahi Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui and Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Advocates For Respondents/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble
Legal Reasoning
Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Per 10.01.2025 Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui and Ms. Diksha Gouraha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondents. 2 2. The appellant/writ petitioner has preferred the instant writ appeal with the following prayers:- “3.1 This Hon’ble Court may kindly set- aside/quash the order Dated 22.08.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed in Review Petition No.154/2021 (Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) by learned Single Bench. 3.2 This Hon’ble Court may kindly set- aside/quash the order Dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure A/2) passed in WPS No.2515/2018 (Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others). 3.3 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue any other order or orders, writ or writs, direction or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the appellant, in the interest of justice.” 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 22.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2515 of 2018 (Santosh Kumar Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) as well as the order dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned
Decision
Single Judge in REVP No.154 of 2021, whereby the writ petition as well as review petition of the appellant /writ petitioner has been dismissed. 4. The appellant/writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge was assailing the order of termination of his services dated 27.02.2018 3 bearing Writ Petition (S) No.2515 of 2018 on the ground that a mercy appeal was preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner to His Excellency the Governor of the State was pending consideration, as such, the appellant/writ petitioner might not have been terminated from services. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.03.2018. 5. Challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge, a review petition being REVP No.154 of 2021 has been preferred by the petitioner, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.08.2024 relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through LRs v. Vinod Kumar Rawat (decided on 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3601 of 2020), in which, Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that the power of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review. 6. Challenging the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition as well as review petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned orders are illegal and bad in the eyes of law. He further submits that impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge are not in accordance with law and no disputed question of facts are involved requiring evidence but without considering the entirety of the aspects 4 and therefore, the same cannot be allowed. He further submits that learned Single Judge has committed error of law by dismissing the writ petition as well as the review petition, as such, appeal be allowed and the impugned orders dated 22.03.2018 and 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge, be set-aside. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter, has rightly passed the impugned orders, which does not call for any interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders and materials available on record. 10. A bare perusal of the record would show that a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No.2515 of 2018 has been filed by the appellant challenging his order of termination, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.03.2018, by observing as follows :- “3. This Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that, admittedly, the petitioner in the instant case was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC and he was further convicted for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC vide order dated 09/12/2000 passed 5 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bywahari, Shahdol. The said order of conviction further has been affirmed in a criminal appeal vide judgment dated 20/06/2001 and also by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in a revision decided on 23/10/2007. 4. These three judgments were further subjected to challenge before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in an S.L.P. preferred by the petitioner which also stood dismissed on 16/04/2008. 5. Given the aforesaid factual matrix of the case, the petitioner as on date stands convicted for offence under Section 304-A of IPC. 6. In view of the fact that the petitioner stands convicted, there would be the automatic disqualification for the petitioner to hold the post in Government employment. 7. Under the circumstances this Court does not find any merits in the present Writ Petition and the same therefore deserve to be and is accordingly dismissed. 8. Needless to mention that since the petitioner has preferred a mercy appeal to his excellency the Governor, in the event if there is setting aside of the order passed by the Governor, the petitioner would be at liberty to revive his claim. 6 9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.” 11. Challenging the aforesaid order, a review petition bearing REVP No.154 of 2021 was preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner, which was also dismissed by the learned Single Judge while relying upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Shri Ram Sahu (dead) through Lrs (supra) vide order dated 22.08.2024. Relevant portion of the said order is reproduced below for easy reference :- “8. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 9. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal No.3601 of 2020 in the case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors., had laid down that the judgment should be open to review, inter alia, if there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, it has also been held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 7 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. 10. Vide order dated 22.03.2018, writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed having considered his conviction under Section 304A of IPC, against which, SLP (Special Leave Petition) was dismissed by the Apex Court. 11. Having considered such conviction of the petitioner, this Court opined that it would be automatic disqualification for the petitioner to hold the post in Government employment and writ petition was dismissed finding no merit in it. 12. If contentions raised by petitioner in instant review petition are taken into consideration, then, it would require application of mind in merits of the case. As such, it appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition, seeks opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 8 13. Having considered the aforesaid facts, principle of law and further considering the reasons assigned in the application for review of the order dated 22.03.2018, are not found to be appropriate, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition. 14. Resultantly, this review petition is dismissed.” 12. Considering the matter in its entirety and after considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties as also perusing the impugned orders, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned orders with cogent and justifiable reasons as in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as in review petition, jurisdiction of the writ Court is very limited as neither inherent power nor an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review. 13. In view of the above, we find that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders warranting interference by this Court. 14. In the result, there is no merit in the writ appeal, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Judge Anu