Director Gen.Of Police,Crpf,& Ors vs P.M.Ramalingam

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