ORDER :

M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. This interlocutory application is filed under Order XLVII Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code (for short 'C.P.C.') to review the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 23315 of 2020 dated 01.04.2021.

2. The main ground raised in the present review petition is that, this Court did not consider Standing Order 179(2) & (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Standing Order 179 deals with Departmental enquiries in case of fraud or embezzlement of Government Money or criminal misconduct etc. Therefore, there is no clear embargo in proceeding with the enquiry till completion of criminal trial against this petitioner. It is contended that, this issue was not considered by this Court, though such contention was urged at the time of hearing argument for the first time. Hence, the petitioner requested this Court to review the order passed by this Court earlier in W.P. No. 23315 of 2020 dated 01.04.2021.

3. Respondents filed counter affidavit, denying material allegations, inter alia, contending that, the contention based on Standing Order No. 179 was raised before this Court and the same was not considered, but no such plea was raised in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents. However, that is not the ground to review the order dated 01.04.2021 according to the respondent and that, Standing Order Nos. 150 and 179 are running contrary to one another and in such case, this Court cannot exercise power of review under Order XLVII Rule (1) of C.P.C. and requested to dismiss the review petition.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed rejoinder raising a specific contention in Paragraph No. 12 of Page No. 8, contending as follows:

"12. Since, trial has not been commenced in the both cases, there is no conflict between these provisions to complete the remaining part of the disciplinary proceedings. According to para 150, since the trial has not been commenced, there is no scope for delivery of judgment at the earliest and hence, disciplinary process can go on and the process should not be hampered. As per Order 179, there is no need to wait to complete the disciplinary proceedings on account of criminal charges. It cannot be said that the criminal charges are pending in the case when the criminal charges are not framed yet in one case (Cr. No. 123/2017) and even charge sheet is not filed in another case (Cr. No. 66/2018). It is the only intention of the charged officer to create confusion to escape disciplinary action in near future."

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I also placed on record judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Limited AIR 1999 SC 1416, Karnataka Power Transport Corporation Limited vs. Sri C. Nagaraju, SLP (C) No. 25909 of 2013 dated 16.09.2019 judgment of Division Bench of this Court in JV. Shankar Prasad vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, W.A. No. 384 of 2020 dated 01.04.2021 order of this Court in D. Ravi Babu vs. Director General of Police, W.P. No. 23315 of 2020 dated 01.04.2021, and Circular Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in Rc. No. 340/L & O-III/2021 dated 08.07.2021. On the strength of these documents, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I sought to review the order dated 01.04.2021.

6. During hearing, learned counsel for the review petitioners raised a specific ground that this Court did not consider the effect of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. Though such contention was not raised in the counter affidavit filed in the writ petition, it was raised at the time of advancing argument. Learned counsel for the review petitioners also raised several other contentions that some of the judgments were not considered as such contention is without any specific plea and requested to review the order in the writ petition.

7. Whereas, Sri G. Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, contended that, Standing Order Nos. 150 and 179 are running contrary to each other and it is difficult