Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATI
M.Satyanarayana Murthy, J.
Director General of Police, A. P. – Appellant
Versus
D. Ravi Babu – Respondent
Review I.A. No. 1 of 2021 in Writ Petition No. 23315 of 2020
Decided On : 20-04-2022
REVIEW PETITION - STANDING ORDER 179(2) AND (3) OF ANDHRA PRADESH POLICE MANUAL - SCOPE OF REVIEW - REVIEW PETITION DISMISSED - NO APPARENT ERROR OR MANIFEST INJUSTICE - CONFLICTING STANDING ORDERS - NO STATUTORY FORCE - REVIEW PETITION NOT MAINTAINABLE.
Fact of the Case:
The review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) to review the order passed by the court in W.P.No.23315 of 2020 dated 1/4/2021. The petitioner contended that the court did not consider Standing Order 179(2) and (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual, which allows departmental enquiries to proceed despite pending criminal cases. The respondents argued that the contention was not raised in the counter-affidavit and that Standing Orders 150 and 179 are contradictory.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the review petition was not maintainable as there was no apparent error or manifest injustice in the original order. The court noted that Standing Orders 150 and 179 are contradictory and that they do not have statutory force. The court also held that the petitioner's contention that Standing Order 179(2) and (3) should have been considered was not raised in the counter-affidavit and that it was not a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the CPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the court erred in not considering Standing Order 179(2) and (3) of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual in its original order? 2. Whether Standing Orders 150 and 179 are contradictory and whether they have statutory force? 3. Whether the petitioner's contention that Standing Order 179(2) and (3) should have been considered was raised in the counter-affidavit and whether it is a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the CPC?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the review petition was not maintainable as there was no apparent error or manifest injustice in the original order. The court noted that Standing Orders 150 and 179 are contradictory and that they do not have statutory force. The court also held that the petitioner's contention that Standing Order 179(2) and (3) should have been considered was not raised in the counter-affidavit and that it was not a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the CPC. 2. The court held that Standing Orders 150 and 179 are contradictory and that they do not have statutory force. The court noted that Standing Order 150 provides that departmental proceedings should be postponed until the criminal case is disposed of, while Standing Order 179(2) and (3) provide that departmental proceedings can proceed simultaneously with the criminal case. 3. The court held that the petitioner's contention that Standing Order 179(2) and (3) should have been considered was not raised in the counter-affidavit and that it was not a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the CPC. The court noted that the petitioner had not raised the contention in the counter-affidavit and that it was not a ground for review under Order XLVII Rule (1) of the CPC.
Final Decision: The review petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
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 dtd. 1/4/2021.
The main ground raised in the present review petition is that, this Court did not consider Standing Order 179 (2) and (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 dtd. 1/4/2021. 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 dtd. 1/4/2021 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.
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."
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 dtd. 16/9/2019 judgment of Division Bench of this Court in N. Shankar Prasad vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh,W.A.No.384 of 2020 dtd. 1/4/2021 order of this Court in D. Ravi Babu vs. Director General of Police,W.P.No.23315 of 2020 dtd. 1/4/2021 and Circular Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh in Rc.No.340/L&O-III/2021 dtd. 8/7/2021. On the strength of these documents, the learned Government Pleader for Services-I sought to review the order dtd. 1/4/2021.
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.
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 to follow either of the Standing Orders of A.P. Police Manual and therefore, it is not
Standing Orders 150 and 179 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual are contradictory and do not have statutory force. A review petition is not maintainable if there is no apparent error or manifest inju....
Police Standing Order, which is a special rule, which deals with the power of the authorities to postpone the decision on the departmental inquiry till pronouncement of judgment in the criminal case,....
A review petition cannot be based on subsequent judgments or changes in law; it must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record or new evidence that was not previously available.
An appeal would lie against an order passed in a review of the order under Article 226 of the Constitution, even if the original order is retained, once the review petition is entertained and the add....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
