REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2008
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.19386-19387 of 2008)
The Director General of Police
Central Reserve Police Force
New Delhi & Ors. ....Appellants
Versus
P.M. Ramalingam ....Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
1
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by the Division
Bench of the Madras High Court in review application no.42/2008, M.P.
No.1/08 dated 18th March, 2008 and M.P. No.2/08 in review application
no.42/08. Accordingly, the respondent’s review application was nothing
but an abuse of the process of court as the 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 of
status quo which would entitle the respondent to enjoy the benefits of
conditional promotion as well as benefit of three years of extra service to
which he was not entitled to.
3. 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 filed SLP(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 on 3rd March, 2008 and
2
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.1074 and 1075 of 2004 dated 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 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 Addl. DIG
and DIG respectively by virtue of interim orders of the High Court 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.1074 and 1075
of 2004. It is pointed out that even without deciding on the question of
maintainability of the of the review application, the interim orders were
passed virtually allowing the review application.
3
4. It is to be noted that during the hearing of the appeal, learned counsel
for the appellants pointed out an order dated 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.P/VII-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 relief prayed
for has been granted by granting interim stay.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that
the High Court was perfectly justified in passing the interim orders.
6. We find that the High Court by its first order observed as follow:
“5. Mr. Anand Natarajan, learned counsel for the
review petitioner, without seeking stay of the
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.
4
6. 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:-
a) the review petition is admitted without prejudice
to the right of the respondents to oppose
maintainability at the time of final hearing;
b) the disciplinary proceedings initiated will not be
stayed, on the other hand, the review petitioner
shall 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
c) the respondents shall maintain status quo, pending
further orders.”
7. In the second order the High Court directed as follow:
“Heard both sides.
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
the final decision in abeyance till the disposal of the
5
above review application, as otherwise the review
application would become infructuous.”
8. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the appellants, the High
Court could not have passed the interim 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.
9. We, therefore, dispose of these appeals with the following directions:
(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.
(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 Writ Appeal
no.1074/04 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.
6
(3) It is open to the appellants to move the High Court to seek variation
of the impugned order in Writ Petition 23914 of 2008 referred to
above.
(4) Let authorities make an effort to complete the departmental
proceedings within three months. Needless to say the respondent
shall cooperate in such completion.
10. Both the appeals are accordingly disposed of without any order as to
costs.
…………………………………..
…………J.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
…………………………………………J.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
New Delhi
November 25, 2008
7