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

J U D G M E N T

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