SATYAWAN VITTHAL KHANDEKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:40820-DB


          bipin prithiani
                                               1
                                                                              901-ra-197.25.doc

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 197 OF 2025
                                             IN
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 8727 OF 2021

          Satyawan Vitthal Khandekar                              …       Petitioner
               Versus
          The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         …       Respondents
                                       ******
          Ms. A. N. Ansari (through V.C.) for the Petitioner.
          Mr. V. M. Kagne, AGP (through V.C.) for Respondent No.1-State.
          Mr. Chandrakant K. Shinde (through V.C.) for Respondent Nos.2
          and 3.
                                       ******
                                 CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
                                             Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.
                                                   (through Video Conferencing)

                                       DATE    : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026

          P.C. :

          .         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

          2.        The present review petition has been filed, seeking review of
          judgment and order dated 22nd August 2025 passed by this Court,
          whereby Writ Petition No.8727 of 2021 filed by the petitioner was
          dismissed. The consequence of the dismissal was confirmation of
          an order of removal from service dated 11th May 2012, passed
          against the petitioner.

          3.        Shorn of unnecessary details, the short issue that arises for
          consideration is as to whether an error apparent on the face of the
bipin prithiani
                                   2
                                                         901-ra-197.25.doc

record crept in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 22 nd
August 2025 passed by this Court, while dismissing the writ
petition.

4.        The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
question framed in the said judgment and order in paragraph 3
was based on the premise that the conviction of the petitioner
under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was in
vogue, at the point in time, when the writ petition was taken up
for consideration. It was further submitted that in the said
judgment, it was recorded as a fact that the petitioner never
challenged the judgment and order dated 29 th February 2012
passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded, whereby he
was found guilty of offence punishable under Section 309 of the
IPC, although he was given the benefit of the Prohibition of
Offenders Act, 1958. It was emphasized that, as a matter of fact,
the petitioner had filed an appeal to challenge the said conviction
and that when the writ petition was filed, the appeal was still
pending. The details of the filing of the appeal were stated in the
writ petition.

5.        It was further emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that
although the fact that the appeal filed by the petitioner was
allowed by judgment and order dated 14 th August 2024 passed by
the Court of Additional Sessions Court-I, Nanded in Criminal
Appeal No. 32 of 2021 was not specifically placed on record, by
way of amending the writ petition and raising an additional
bipin prithiani
                                    3
                                                           901-ra-197.25.doc

ground, but the respondents in their reply affidavit had conceded
to the fact that the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the
petitioner was set aside. In that regard, reference was made to the
reply affidavit in the writ petition. It was submitted that the appeal
of the petitioner being allowed, during the pendency of the writ
petition was a factor that could have been taken into consideration
when the writ petition was disposed of. It was submitted that even
though the petitioner could be said to be at fault in not having
amended the writ petition to raise a specific ground in that regard,
the said error on the part of the petitioner ought not to deprive
him of an opportunity of consideration of the effect of the appeal
being allowed on the prayer made in the writ petition.

6.        On the other hand, Mr. Shinde, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents submitted that the fact that the writ
petition was not amended and a specific ground was never raised
in the writ petition, on the basis of the said appeal being allowed
and the conviction being set aside, is a factor that ought to be
taken into consideration. It is submitted that the said aspect of the
matter was not even properly placed before the Court, at the time
when the petition was heard and finally disposed of on 22 nd
August 2025.

7.        It was submitted that in such a situation, it cannot be said
that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the
judgment and order dated 22 nd August 2025 passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No. 8727 of 2021. On this basis, it was submitted
bipin prithiani
                                    4
                                                           901-ra-197.25.doc

that the review petition deserved to be dismissed.

8.        We have considered the rival submissions. There can be no
doubt that review jurisdiction can be exercised only in the event
an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated.
According to us, it is immaterial as to who can be said to be at
fault, as a result of which, such an error apparent on the face of
the record may have crept in the order of which review is sought.

9.        The documents on record clearly show that when the writ
petition was taken up for hearing, the judgment and order dated
14th August 2024 passed by the said Court, allowing the appeal of
the petitioner, was not placed on record. It is also an admitted
position on record that the writ petition was not amended and no
specific ground was added by way of amendment by the petitioner,
to claim benefit of the appeal being allowed and the conviction
under Section 309 of the IPC being set aside.

10.       Nonetheless, the fact that the appeal was indeed allowed and
the conviction of the petitioner was set aside, cannot be denied.
The respondents in their reply affidavit in the writ petition had
alluded to the said fact, although copy of the judgment and order
was not placed on record. It is also to be noted that in the writ
petition it was indeed pleaded that at the time of filing of the writ
petition, appeal against the order of conviction under Section 309
of the IPC was preferred by the petitioner.

11.       In this backdrop, when we peruse the judgment and order
bipin prithiani
                                       5
                                                                901-ra-197.25.doc

dated 22nd August 2025, we find that the question specifically
framed in paragraph 3 of the said judgment, was based on a
conclusion that the petitioner was convicted and found guilty of
offence under Section 309 of the IPC and whether the fact that he
was granted benefit of the Prohibition of Offenders Act, in itself
could be a factor to interfere with the penalty of removal from
service. Paragraph 3 of the judgment and order dated 22 nd August
2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 8727 of 2021, of which review is
sought, reads as follows :

          “3. After hearing both sides, a very short legal question that
          falls for our consideration is whether a petitioner, who has
          been held guilty by a Competent Court for the offence under
          Section 309 of IPC, but he was granted the benefit of
          probation under the Probation of Offenders Act instead of
          being sentenced, can be awarded the punishment of removal
          from service without disqualification from future government
          employment under Rule 13(i) of the Maharashtra Civil
          Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1979.”
12.       We also find that in paragraph 16 of the judgment and
order, the following observations were made :

          “16. However, on 08.04.2010, F.I.R. No.87 of 2010 was
          registered against the petitioner for the offence under Sections
          309 of IPC. It is a matter of record that, after conclusion of
          the trial in Summary Criminal Case, the learned Judicial
          Magistrate First Class, Nanded, by Judgment and order dated
          29.02.2012, found the petitioner guilty for the offence
          punishable under Section 309 of IPC. However, he was
          granted the benefit of the probation of Offenders Act, 1958,
          upon execution of a bond for one year, instead of being
          sentenced to imprisonment. The petitioner never challenged
          the order of conviction; therefore, the conviction continues to
          remain in force.”
13.       The observation in the above quoted portion to the effect
bipin prithiani
                                              6
                                                                        901-ra-197.25.doc

that the petitioner never challenged the order of the conviction
and therefore, conviction continues to remain in force is obviously
factually incorrect, as the petitioner had not only filed an appeal,
but by the said judgment and order dated 14 th August 2024 passed
by the Appellate Court, during the pendency of the writ petition,
the appeal was allowed and the conviction was set aside.

14.       As a matter of fact, if this event was brought to the notice of
this Court, the legal question framed in paragraph 3 of the said
judgment and order of this Court, perhaps would not have arisen
for consideration at all.

15.       As noted hereinabove, it is immaterial as to whether the
petitioner is to be blamed for the recording of the aforesaid facts
in our judgment and order. When it is brought to our notice that,
as a matter of fact, the conviction suffered by the petitioner for
offence under Section 309 of the IPC no longer continued to
remain            in   force,   it   cannot       be   denied   that   the    factual
observation/finding in the above quoted paragraph 16 of our
judgment and order, is rendered incorrect. This situation would
qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.       We are of the opinion that when the writ petition was
argued, the aforementioned sequence of events culminating in the
appeal of the petitioner being allowed by the judgment and order
dated 14th August 2024, was not properly placed before this
Court. Although, in the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondents, the said fact was mentioned, neither the petitioner
bipin prithiani
                                    7
                                                          901-ra-197.25.doc

nor the respondents placed copy of the aforesaid judgment and
order dated 14th August 2024 of the Appellate Court on the record
of the writ petition. This eventually led to the writ petition being
decided on the basis that the aforesaid conviction continued to
operate. We are of the opinion that in such circumstances, error
apparent on the face of the record of the said judgment and order,
is made out and hence, the review petition deserves to be allowed.
Consequently, the judgment and order dated 22 nd August 2026
passed in Writ Petition No. 8727 of 2021 is reviewed and recalled.

17.       The review petition is allowed in the above terms. Pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of. As a consequence, Writ
Petition No. 8727 of 2021 stands restored.

18.       The Registry shall place the said writ petition for hearing
before the appropriate Bench, as per the extant assignment.



  (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.)                      (MANISH PITALE, J.)