2017 PLP 229 (YLR)

MUHAMMAD DAUD KHAN, J.

Through instant petition, Engr: Raz Muhammad, the petitioner, has questioned the judgment and order of this Court dated 1.10.2015, whereby Writ Petition No.1368-P/2013 filed by petitioner for setting aside the impugned order of imposition of minor penalty awarded to him, was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was posted as Tehsil Officer (Infrastructure) in TMA, Swabi on 29.3.2012. The then TMO, Swabi made complaint against the petitioner regarding malpractice/corruption. The inquiry was conducted and after completion, the petitioner was awarded a minor penalty of withholding of one annual increment for a period of three years. This order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1368-P/ 2013, which after hearing of learned counsel for the parties, was dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 1.10.2015. Feeling aggrieved from the same, the petitioner has filed the instant review petition.

3. Arguments of learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner wants to re-open the case, which has already been decided on merits, as this Court with conscious application of mind had passed the judgment under review. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A re-hearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In nut shell the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view.

5. This Court, while maintaining the impugned order of imposition of minor penalty awarded to him, had passed the judgment/order under review with conscious application of mind and keeping in view the materials available on file.

6. The Superior courts of the country from time to time rendered the judgments holding therein that the Review petition does not mean rehearing of the case that is already decided. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled, "Mian Rafiq Saigol v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd" reported in PLD 1997 SC 865, did not reconsider the matter, which converge on the merits of the judgment, even if the same is erroneous per se, as the exercise of review jurisdiction is neither a rehearing of the matter nor a ground to justify its review because of the finality attaches to it. Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in case titled "Sajid Mehmood v. Muhammad Shafi" reported in (2008 SCMR 554) has also held that:- "The exercise of review jurisdiction does not mean a rehearing of the matter and as finally attaches to the order, a decision, even though it is erroneous per se, would not be a ground to justify its review." Similarly in case titled, "Ali Ahmad v. Muhammad Iqbal" reported in (2009 SCMR 394), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that:-- "A review by its very nature was not an appeal or rehearing merely on the ground that one party or another conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of the Court."

7. If the petitioner was aggrieved, he could have approached the Apex Court for relief against the judgment of this Court instead of filing this petition.

8. Apart from above, the impugned order under review has been passed on 1.10.2015, the petitioner applied for attested copies of the judgment on 16.10.2015 after 15 days and the attested copies were delivered to the petitioner on 1.12.2015 whereas he filed the instant review petition on 12.12.2015 after 11 days so after computing the period/time consumed for obtaining attested copies, it comes out about 26 days which is badly time barred as the period provided for seeking review of the judgment of this Court is twenty days under Article 162 of Limitation Act, 1908, so on this score alone, the instant petition is liable to be dismissed as it is mandate of statute that suit, appeal or application filed after period of limitation shall be liable to dismissal.

9. For what has been discussed above, the instant petition is dismissed on merit as well as badly time barred. ZC/267/P Review dismissed.