Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1311 (ALL)

Pooran Singh Mehra v. State Of U. P.

2002-09-18

R.B.MISRA

body2002
JUDGMENT : - R.B.Misra 1. IN this writ petition order dated 17.11.1997 (Annexure-13 to the writ petition) issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karmik) Uttar Pradesh by means of which the Inspector General of Police, Meerut Zone, has been informed that the recommendation of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion to the post of Inspector of Police has been rejected on the ground that the special committee constituted in that regard has not found any special role played by the petitioner individually which might entitle him to get out-of-turn promotion as per the Government order dated 3.2.1994. 2. HEARD Sri V. K. Shukla learned counsel with Sri Ram Sajiwan for the petitioner as well as Sri B. K. Pandey learned standing counsel for the respondents. Brief facts, necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition, are that the petitioner at the crucial time was posted as S.S.I. Police at police station Pilkhuwa, district Ghaziabad, it was learnt that on 11.11.1995, that Inspector-in-charge of the police station Pilkhuwa along with some other police personnel had surrounded 5-6 notorious elements (history sheeters). 3. IT appears in the above operation those bad elements started firing over the police party and in retaliation, the exchange of fire were made. The exchange of fire and operation prolonged for about 8 hours and even the senior police officers were kept abreast of such operation on radio-telephone set, pursuant to which the petitioner along with others reached the area of operation at 7.30 a.m. where the encounter and fire exchange were going on, at that time the member of the police party were not aware about the details of the persons surrounded because heavy firing was going on. The petitioner along with some other police personnel entered sugarcane field where the notorious elements were hidden. One companion of the petitioner Sri Kripa Shanker Katiyar, Station Officer, Police Station, Mussorie, Ghaziabad, was directly affected as a consequence of burst of firing on behalf of the notorious elements. Consequently, Sri Kripa Shanker Katiyar, S.O., was hit in his chest by bullet then fell down and had succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The petitioner also sustained bullet injuries on his head and shoulder in such operation. Consequently, Sri Kripa Shanker Katiyar, S.O., was hit in his chest by bullet then fell down and had succumbed to the injuries at the spot. The petitioner also sustained bullet injuries on his head and shoulder in such operation. In all, there were three bullet injuries sustained by the petitioner including one bullet injury on parietal region and one on the shoulder, but despite these serious injuries, the petitioner did not retrace his steps and maintained his courage and continued to proceed ahead. IT was very convenient for the petitioner to have taken shelter behind his injuries, but the petitioner without caring for his life, was continuously involved in the operation where many of the notorious elements were killed and some made their escape from the spot. The operation prolonged about eight hours where the petitioner remained involved in the operation despite serious injuries. The petitioner remained at the spot at the stake of life risk and in peril and after that was over the four notorious persons were killed including the gang leader known as 'Gangster Pappu' son of Sukkha Singh, particularly known as dangerous gangster of the region. 4. IT is pertinent to mention that Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, submitted his report (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) to the D.I.G., Meerut Region, giving graphic details of the entire episode, operation and details of the part played by various police personnel participated in the operation of encounter, where the role of the petitioner was given in much detail indicating that the petitioner has showed extra courage and bravery without which the entire episode and risky operation could not have been successfully done. The Superintendent of Police has further concluded that the petitioner along with others has exhibited extraordinary courage and devotion to duty for which he is entitled to out-of-turn promotion. After the encounter, a Magisterial enquiry submitted its report to the District Magistrate who in turn recommended the claim of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion acknowledging that extraordinary courage was shown by the petitioner. This letter of District Magistrate dated 6.3.1996 alongwith report of Magisterial enquiry was also placed before the Committee considering the petitioner's eligibility for out-of-turn promotion. The Enquiry Report has also been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 5. This letter of District Magistrate dated 6.3.1996 alongwith report of Magisterial enquiry was also placed before the Committee considering the petitioner's eligibility for out-of-turn promotion. The Enquiry Report has also been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. 5. ON receipt of the report from the S.S.P., Ghaziabad, the D.I.G., Meerut Range, by his letter dated 10.10.1996 wrote to the Inspector General of Meerut Range, affirming the role of petitioner extraordinary courage and bravery in the episode in question and recommended for out-of-turn promotion. The I.G., Meerut Zone, in sequence to that had recommended on 5.11.1996 the case of the petitioner to D.I.G. Police (Karmik) Police Head Quarter, Allahabad. It appears that all these papers were placed before Special Committee constituted for the purpose. 6. IT is relevant to state that the question of out-of-turn promotion has been provided in the Government order dated 3.2.1994 enclosed as Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition, where the relevant annexure is Annexure-9 read with the order and office memorandum issued by the I.G. (Karmik) dated 10.2.1994, where for showing the extraordinary courage and bravery by the police personnel working as a sub-inspector may be given out-of-turn promotion to the post of Inspector Police. IT is pertinent to mention that the petitioner was also awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh for showing his bravery in the incident in question. The question regarding one rank out-of-turn promotion came to be considered by the Committee consisting of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Inspector General of Police (Crime), Inspector General of Police (Administration) and the Additional Director General of Police (Crime). The Committee above mentioned by its order dated 17.11.1997 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) indicated that the entire episode does not disclose any special role discharged by the petitioner which may be treated to bring him within the purview of extraordinary courage and bravery, therefore, the case of the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion for the post of Inspector was denied. It is pertinent to mention that the State Government had given out-of-turn promotion to the participants of incident dated 1.3.1994 of past which occurred within the same police station Pilkhuwa, Ghaziabad. In this episode, six police personnel including the constable were given out-of-turn promotion in the light of the same Government order dated 3.2.1994. It is pertinent to mention that the State Government had given out-of-turn promotion to the participants of incident dated 1.3.1994 of past which occurred within the same police station Pilkhuwa, Ghaziabad. In this episode, six police personnel including the constable were given out-of-turn promotion in the light of the same Government order dated 3.2.1994. In report submitted by the S.S.P., Ghaziabad, in respect of operation dated 1.3.1994, none of the police personnel had received any injury nor it was a case of prolonged firing and the report did not even indicate as to which police personnel exhibited courage individually unlike the case of the petitioner here in the operation of 11.11.1995, yet the Committee had recommended in favour of the police personnel involved in operation dated 1.3.1994 for out-of-turn promotion and the Director General of Police had approved the promotions in exercise of his powers under the Government order dated 3.2.1994. 7. IN other case also, where five persons have been given out-of-turn promotions under the same Government order by the Director General of Police in reference to the encounter dated 7.2.1994 of notorious element Ajeet in district Ghaziabad granted out-of-turn promotions where the gravity and seriousness of operation was far less than that in which the petitioner was involved. IN the incident of 7.2.1994 also none received any injury from the side of the police. The report even does not indicate any individual exemplary bravery or devotion to duty and it only indicated some firing by gangsters in retaliation of the police firing. Even that incidence was taken as sufficient for grant of out-of-turn promotion as would be evident from the order of the Director General of Police dated 29.10.1994 together with order dated 16.11.1994 (Annexure-13). 8. IN the counter-affidavit, only this aspect was repeated that the involvement and role of the petitioner was not within the definition of showing 'the exemplary courage and bravery' to entitle the petitioner for out-of-turn promotion. The decision of the Committee dated 17.10.1997, no where mentioned any reason. No definition or any specific parameter for evaluation or any criteria was adopted which was not fulfilled by the petitioner, only by simple words the Committee indicated that the role and action of the petitioner was not to be covered under exemplary courage, bravery and full of danger. However, 'danger' word was never conceived of or mentioned in the Circular dated 3.2.1994. However, 'danger' word was never conceived of or mentioned in the Circular dated 3.2.1994. The word is only 'exemplary courage and bravery'. The word 'full of danger' has been superimposed by the Committee out of context. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the contentions of the counter-affidavit were endeavoured to be repelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Ashok Rana v. Home Secretary, U. P. Shashan, Lucknow and others, 2000 (4) AWC 2889 : (2000) 3 UPLBEC 2324 , where the Sub-Inspector of Police recommended by Senior Superintendent of Police for his out-of-turn promotion for displaying exemplary courage and bravery in the course of a police encounter in which notorious dacoit 'Devesh' alias 'Pappu Misra' son of Pratap Narain Misra and his accomplice 'Ram Pal' fell to the police bullets and the D.I.G. and I.G. (Police) concerned had also recommended the case of Ashok Rana observing that from a perusal of the impugned order dated 17.11.1997, it would transpire that it assigns no reason as to why the petitioner, upon whom each one in the hierarchy had lavished praise for his exemplary courage and bravery in gunning down the dreaded dacoit putting in jeopardy his own life, as stated in the report of the Inspector General of Police, Kanpur, Zone, Kanpur was not appraised to be an act of exemplary courage and gallantry within the parameters laid down by the State Government. Even the Director General of Police in his letter dated August 29, 1998, had made recommendations to the State Government for award of police medal to the petitioner for his exemplary courage and bravery for the incident of village Dalelganj at the house of Virendra Tripathi, Pradhan of the village within the circle of P.S. Shamshabad in which an encounter with 5 or 6 dacoits took place. The reports of the sponsoring authorities were treated to have constituted valid material for the formation of opinion for out-of-turn promotion in that case in favour of claimants and were not liable to be ignored sans any rhyme or reason. The grant of power to give out-of-turn promotion to a police officer was no doubt subjectively formulated but the decision of the Committee one way or the other was to be based on objective consideration of valid materials such as the reports/ recommendations made by the S.S.P./D.I.G./I.G. (P.). 9. The grant of power to give out-of-turn promotion to a police officer was no doubt subjectively formulated but the decision of the Committee one way or the other was to be based on objective consideration of valid materials such as the reports/ recommendations made by the S.S.P./D.I.G./I.G. (P.). 9. FOLLOWING the above case of Ashok Rana (supra), this Court on 24.4.2001 in Writ Petition No. 18692 of 1997, Brij Nandan Rai v. State of U. P. and others, has observed that the petitioner was illegally denied one rank out-of-turn promotion and the decision of the Inspector General of Police approving the report of the Committee as genuine for the out-of-turn promotion was quashed and the respondents were directed by this Court to give one rank out-of-turn promotion in favour of the claimant in terms of the Government order dated 3.2.1994 within a stipulated time. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel. I find that the petitioner without caring for his life and injuries which, had been sustained by him during the course of said operation and encounter on vital parts of the body had continued to join the operation completely overlooking threat and imminent danger to his life which he faced by the bullet injuries of the notorious gangsters. If such activity does not amount to 'extraordinary courage and bravery', then it is impossible to believe that there can be any other instance of extraordinary courage. In any manner, it cannot be said that the episode and operation was not serious, more so when it lasted for eight hours during which there were continuous firing from both the sides in presence of senior police officers and life of every participant, specifically the petitioner was in peril. The Magisterial enquiry concerned for the episode have also indicated to the District Magistrate which consequently brought to the notice of the State Government which clearly demonstrated that the entire episode was extremely serious one in which notorious gangsters succumbed to the bullets of the police personnel which again shows the exemplary courage and bravery by the petitioner cumulatively taking the role of others which was successfully concluded, does not require any law to exhibit extraordinary courage and bravery only to die in the episode. What required is the scant respect for life during the episode and operation and enthusiastic desire, willingness to maintain the courage for involving in the operation of encounter keeping one's life at stake without caring the injuries being sustained. Circular dated 3.2.1994 is to encourage and to improve the self-confidence of the police personnel who are alive and have saved their life from danger and such award in the form of out-of-turn promotion is not as posthumous award. The committee has carelessly and in a casual manner considered the case of petitioner and has not bothered to evaluate the role of the petitioner and by putting an extra irrelevant word 'danger to life' for granting out-of-turn promotion specifically shows non-application of mind on the part of the committee. The Committee has not analysed the episode in true perspective and has not recorded any reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. In absence of any parameter or any guideline provided for or in absence of any specific meaning prescribed for the word used as 'exemplary courage and bravery' in the Government order for granting out-of-turn promotion, the decision of the committee's order dated 17.11.1997, passed by a non-speaking order for lack of proper elaboration cannot legally sustain, on the ground of discrimination and arbitrariness. Therefore, the order dated 17.11.1997, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for granting him out-of-turn promotion to the post of Inspector Police in the light of the circular dated 3.2.1994 and in view of the observations made above preferably within two months from the receipt of this order. The copy of this order shall be conveyed to the Director General of Police, U.P. by learned standing counsel/chief standing counsel as well as by the petitioner himself for taking proper steps as directed above. 11. THERE shall be no order as to cost.