Delhi High Court: While examining a review petition, a Division Bench comprising Vivek Chaudhary and Tejas Karia*, JJ., reiterated that review under Order 47 Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908 is limited to examining any error apparent on the face of record or upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence. Review could not be invoked to reassess the case on merits or serve as an appeal in disguise. The Court held that suspension ceased to operate independently once disciplinary proceedings culminated in removal, rendering the suspension challenges infructuous. Since enhancement of subsistence allowance had not been specifically sought in the writ petition, that incidental claim likewise became infructuous. Finding no error apparent on the face of the record, the Court dismissed the petition.
Also Read: Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: AP HC | SCC Times
Background
The petitioner, a retired judicial officer, was appointed as Presiding Officer of the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT)-II, Chandigarh in February 2022. Following complaints from the DRT Bar Association alleging misbehaviour towards members of the Bar and inordinately long adjournments, he was suspended in February 2024 and served with a charge-sheet.
The petitioner challenged the suspension order, the charge-sheet, and the appointment of the inquiry officer via a writ petition. His suspension was further extended till November 2024 by an extension order. The same was challenged by a fresh writ petition, among other things, on the ground that the subsistence allowance had not been increased beyond 50 per cent of his last drawn pay. His extension was subsequently extended further. His separate challenge to this extension was dismissed, as was the ensuing appeal. A special leave petition filed by the petitioner before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 3 June 2025. By a common judgment, the Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions filed above, finding no jurisdictional or procedural defect in the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and holding that the merits of the allegations fell for determination in those proceedings. Petitioner was subsequently removed from service on 18 November 2025 and challenged that order before the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide a fresh writ petition. In August 2026, the Delhi High Court dismissed the letters patent appeal against the Single Judge’s judgment, holding that the challenges to the suspension and its extension had become infructuous upon his removal and that no jurisdictional error warranted interference.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the current review petition seeking review of the appellate judgment.
Grounds urged in the review petition
The petitioner contended that the appellate judgment had failed to consider material pleadings and written submissions concerning the enhancement of subsistence allowance, the challenge to the suspension order, and the effect of the removal order. He further contended that he was entitled to enhancement of subsistence allowance from 50 per cent to 75 per cent after 90 days, as the delay in the inquiry was not attributable to him. Moreover, the written arguments, though filed and relied upon, were not referred to in the judgment, causing grave prejudice to him.
The petitioner submitted that the challenges to the suspension order and extension order had distinct legal consequences which would survive the subsequent removal order, challenged separately on limited grounds. He relied on the order dated 26 November 2025, which had recorded his position that invalidation of the inquiry would automatically affect the removal order. He also alleged that the appellate judgment had failed to address his challenges to the charge-sheet, including allegations of forgery, dishonesty and mala fides, and had inadequately evaluated the documentary evidence. Relying on various Supreme Court authorities concerning reasoned orders, natural justice and the rational exercise of discretion, he sought review of the judgment.
Also Read: Bom HC: Review petition filed after 645 days delay not condonable | SCC Times
Court’s Analysis
The Court explained that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was limited in nature. It lies upon the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence, or upon an error apparent on the face of the record. It further stated that the error apparent must be self-evident without requiring elaborate reasoning. It reasoned that review could not serve as an appeal in disguise or as a means of reassessing the merits of the case.
On the contention of non-consideration of the pleadings and written arguments, the Court note that the appellate judgment had adequately addressed all the issues requiring determination, recorded its own reasons and affirmed the Single Judge’s reasoning. Since the challenges to the suspension and extension orders had been held infructuous, the Court considered it unnecessary to address every submission directed against those orders. It therefore found no apparent error warranting review.
Regarding the argument surrounding enhancement of subsistence allowance, the Court found that in the writ petition challenging the same, the petitioner had only sought the setting aside of the extension order and reinstatement as Presiding Officer of the DRT. He did not seek any specific relief for enhancement of subsistence allowance. Since the judgment held that the challenge to the extension order did not survive the removal order, the incidental claim of subsistence allowance was also rendered infructuous. The Court further reasoned that suspension pending inquiry had constituted an interim measure to facilitate unhindered conduct of disciplinary proceedings as recognised in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147. It had ceased to operate independently once the disciplinary proceedings culminated in removal. It regarded the appellant’s demand for separate examination of the suspension orders as an impermissible attempt to reopen the merits.
The Court held that the grounds challenging the removal order, including objections relating to the inquiry report, fell for consideration in writ petition pending before the Punjab and Haryana High Court. It clarified that the order dated 26 November 2025 had merely recorded the appellant’s position that invalidation of the inquiry would nullify the removal order; it had neither accepted that position nor decided that the suspension challenges survived. Accordingly, that order had not contained any determination inconsistent with the appellate judgment.
As to the grounds concerning the charge-sheet and alleged absence of reasons, the Court observed that the Single Judge’s findings had already been affirmed in appeal. Those findings had included the absence of a jurisdictional defect in the charge-sheet and the rejection of the allegation of mala fides. The Court reiterated that the truth of the charges ordinarily could not be examined under Article 226 and that those findings could not be reopened in review without an apparent error. It also found that paras 7 to 11 of the appellate judgment had supplied reasons for its conclusions. Arguments that those reasons were inadequate or that the evidence justified a different result amounted to a challenge on the merits rather than a permissible ground for review.
Decision
The Court held that the petitioner had failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground for review. Accordingly, it dismissed the review petition.
[M.M. Dhonchak v. Union of India, Review Petition 469/2026, decided on 16-10-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Tejas Karia
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Balraj Singh Malik, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC; Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
