The Director General of Police Central Reserve Police Force New Delhi & Ors. versus P.M. Ramalingam

Interim order, passed in review petition - Relief granted C virtually amounted to allowing review petition ...,.. Held: Such course is not permissible in law.

¶11

. The departmental proceedings were ihitiated against the respondent during 2000. At that time, he was serving 0 in the rank of Commandant. He was not entitled to any promotion during the pendency of the departmental inquiry against him. The age of superannuation in the rank of Commandant being 57 years, respondent was required to superannuate during September 2008.

¶12

E

¶13

During the pendency of the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants, by virtue of interim orders of the High Court, respondent was promoted conditionally to the rank of Addi. DIG and DIG respectively. The High Court mentioned that such promotions were subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal. High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by appellants. Respondent filed SLPs which was dismissed. Respondent then filed review application. In the review application, plea essentially was to get his two promotions regularized which otherwise had been accepted by the respondent for many years to be conditional. High Court passed interim order of status quo, permitting respondent fo continue to discharge his duties · as DIG beyond 30.9.2008.

F .

c$

623

H

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

624

'

A In ·appeals to this Court, appellants contended that the interim orders passed in review applic·ation were passed without deciding on the question of maintainabiiity of the review application.

¶23

Dispo$irig of the appeals with certain directions, the 8 Court ' ·

¶24

HELO: The High:-~ourt could not have passed the interim order which virtually means allowing the review petition, without deciding the question of maintainability c of the review petition. Such a course is not permissible in law. [Para 8] (627-0] ·

¶25

~·

¶26

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 6755-6756 of 2008.

¶27

-From the interim Order dated 18.3.2008 and 29.4.2008 0 of the High Court of judicature at Madras in Review Application No. 42 of 2008 and M.P. No. 2 of2008 in Review Application No. 42 of 2008 in Writ Appeal No. 107 4 of 2004.

¶28

P.S. Patwalia, V. Mahana, S.N. Terdol and Sushma Suri E for the Appellants. -

¶29

R. Ramesh A Sumathi for the Respondent.

¶30

The Judgment9f the Court was delivered by

¶31

OR. ARIJIT'PASAYAT,.J. 1. Leave granted.

¶32

F

¶33

Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in re~iew applicationno.42/2008, M.P. No .. 1/08 dated 18th March, 2008 and M.P. No. 2/08 in review application no.42/08. Accordingly, G the respondent's review applicati9n was nothing but an abuse of the process of court as ~he :same relief which was turned down by this Court has been sought for in the review application. It is the case of the appellants that the High Court has passed the interim order ot'status quo:which would entitle H the respondent to enjoy the benefits of conditional promotion

H

~·

;

DIRECTOR GEN. OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE625 FORCl::NEWDELHlv.P.M.RAMALINGAM[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,J.]

¶38

as well as benefit of three years of extra service to which. he A was not entitled to.

¶39

It is pointed out that the High Court allowed the writ appeal filed by the appellants granting liberty to proceed with departmental inquiry in accordance with law. The respondent 8 fllecrSCP(C) 4552-4533/2008 specifically praying to restrain the department from reverting the respondent from the post of DIG to the post of Additional DIG and consequently to the post of Commandant. The aforesaid SLPs were mentioned on 21.2.2008 and it was directed that the matter shall be listed c on 3rd March, 2008 and reversion, if any, was stayed till then. The matter was listed and after hearing the parties this Court dismissed the SLPs. Soon after dismissal of the SLPs on the merit, the respondent again filed revision for review of the judgment in Writ Appeal nos.107 4 and 1075 of 2004 dated 0 4.1.2008. The plea essentially was to get his two promotions regularized which otherwise had been accepted· by the respondent for many years to be conditional. It is pointed out that when the departmental proceedings were initiated during 2000 against the respondent he was serving in the rank of Commandant and was not entitled to any promotion during the E pendency of the departmental inquiry against him and the age of superannuation in the rank of Commandant is 57 years. Therefore, he was required to superannuate during September 2008. He was promoted conditionally to the rank of Addi. DIG and DIG respectively by virtue of interim orders of the High Court F dated 29.3.2004 and 6.7.2007 during the pendency of the Writ Appeal filed by the appellants. It was clearly mentioned by the High Court that such promotions were subject to the outcome of Writ Appeal nos.107 4 and 1075 of 2004. It is pointed out that even without deciding on the question of maintainability of G the of the review application, the interim orders were passed virtually allowing the review application.

¶40

It is to be noted that during the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellants pointed out an order dated

¶41

H

¶42

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2008] 16 S.C.R.

626

, • r

C

! ' I

f )

A 29.9.2008 in M.P. No. 1/2008 in Writ Petition no.23914/08 granting interim stay of the proceedings pursuant to the orders made.in No. PNll-2/2008 Pers-I dated 24.9.2008. The prayer was to permit .the writ petitioner to continue to discharge his duties as DIG.beyond.30.9.2008. It is submitted that ultimate B relief prayed for has ~een granted by granting interim stay.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted thatthe High Court was perfectly justified in passing the interim orders.

¶51

We find that the High Court by its first order observed as follow:

¶52

D

¶53

E

¶54

"5. Mr. Anand Natarajan, learned counsel for the review petitioner, without seeking stay of th~ disciplinary action, prays for interim injunction restraining the respondents from reverting the .petitioner from the post of DIG to ADIG, pending the disposal of the review petition, on the ground that the age of retirement of DIG is 60 years and on the other hand if he is reverted he would be retiring at the age of 58 years even pending the above disciplinary action.

¶55

It is under such circumstances, we are satisfied that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, we pass the following order:-

¶56

F

¶57

a) the review petition is admitted without prejudice·to the right of the respondents to oppose maintainability at the time offinal hearing;

¶58

b) the disciplinary proceedings initiated will not be stayed, on the other hand, the review petitioner shall G cooperate with·the disciplinary proceedings, which shall be completed within twelve weeks from the date of commencement of the disciplinary proceedings viz. 4.3.2008 as agreed by the learned Senior Central Government standing Counsel; and

¶59

H

¶60

,,

¶61

DIRECTOR GEN. OF POLICE CENTRAL RESERVE POUCE627; FORCENEWDELHI v. P.M. RAMALINGAM[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT,J.]

¶62

c) . the respondents shall maintain status quo, pending A further orders." ·

¶63

In the second order the High Court directed as follow:

¶64

"Heard both sides ..

¶65

91

¶66

As the departmental enquiry has already commenced, it may not be proper to stay all further proceedings of the enquiry at this stage. Hence, it is suffice, in our considered opinion, to permit the enquiry proceedings to go on, however, with a direction to keep c· · the final decision in abeyance tlll the disposal of the above review application, as otherwise the review application would become infructuous."

¶67

As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the High Court could not have passed the interim^D order which virtually means allowing the review petition, without deciding the question of maintainability of the review petition. Such a course is not permissible in law .

¶68

We, therefore, dispose of these appeals with the E following directions:

¶69

·I

¶70

'

¶71

(1) The High Court shall decide the question relating to maintainability of the review petition and then proceed to deal with it, if it is found that the review petition is maintainable .

¶72

F

¶73

(2) Further the order of this Court dated 18.9.2008 granting interim stay of the High Court's orders dated 18.3.2008 and 29.4.2008 shall remain operative till the Review Application no.42/08 in G Writ Appeal no.107 4104 is decided. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the question of as to the maintainability or otherwise of the Review application.

¶74

H

¶75

~ '

¶76

628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 16 S.C.R.
A . ··.· (3) If is open to 'the appellants to move the High Court _,
to seek variation of the impugned order in Writ
·. _titian. 2.14 of2Q08 ref~_rr~d to above.
(4) Let authorities make an effort to .complete. the
a ~ ,:. ... " departmental proceedings within three months.
Needless to·say the respondent shall cooperate in
such completion.
. I
1 Q, Both :the appeals are accordingly disposed of without
any order as .to costs.
c
D:G. Appeals disposed of.
"
) '
:. ' ' ,,,.
I
l.
t
__}:

¶77

r

The Director General of Police Central Reserve Police Force New Delhi & Ors. v. P.M. Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Director General of Police Central Reserve Police Force New Delhi & Ors. v. P.M. Ramalingam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shilpa versus Abhinav

Kilari Malakondiaah @ Malayadri & Ors. versus State of Andhra Pradesh

Md. Rafique @ Chachu versus State of West Bengal

State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu versus Rajendran & Ors.

State of U.P. & Anr. versus Jagdish Saran Agrawal. & Ors.

Union of India and Ors. versus Atam Parkash and Anr.