proceedings. It is further argued that the decision of this Court was rendered without allowing the Petitioner to peruse the file and point out procedural infirmities in the SSFC Trial, which was concluded in haste. The Petitioner is also aggrieved that certain precedents relied on by him have not been discussed in the judgment. 3. As recorded in the judgment dated 02.05.2026, the only ground pressed by the Petitioner before this Court was that he had been denied an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and defend against the charges levied against him, which was vehemently contested by the Respondents. No new ground can be entertained in the present review proceedings. 4. In the counter affidavit, the Respondents had specifically averred that the Petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to defend his case in the SSFC Trial and proper procedure was followed. Although there was no reason to disbelieve the said assertions made by a competent officer on behalf of the Respondents in the counter affidavit, it was in the context of the limited grievance raised by the Petitioner that this Court had perused the original file of the Trial to satisfy itself. The record reflected that the Petitioner had duly participated in the proceedings by examining the prosecution witnesses and he had also been afforded an opportunity to defend himself. Be that as it may, the said fact is also apparent from the material on record, including the observations in order dated 26.10.2022, whereby the statutory petition preferred by the Petitioner was dismissed. Perusal of the judgment dated 02.05.2026 indicates that categorical observations to this effect have been noted in Paragraph 8. Moreover, at the time of arguments, when the Court had perused the original files to assuage itself, no such objection was
