Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1028 (PAT)

Sachindra Nath Dubey v. Union Of India

2005-12-01

AFTAB ALAM, REKHA KUMARI

body2005
Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order by which a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the appellants writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 9112 of 2000) seeking a direction to the concerned authorities in the Government of India to grant him the Presidents Police Medal for his acts of gallantry while he was in service. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner is a retired police officer who after retirement from service has joined the Bar and has taken to the practice of appearing in person in cases in which he is the petitioner. After being quite unmindful of his claim for more than 16 years, he now seems to be pursuing it with unusual tenacity. From 1996, when the began to pursue the claim in earnest, he has come before the Writ Court three times (not counting the MJ.Cs. filed in-between) and in the third round, the matter has been brought before the Divisional Bench in the internal Court Appeal. 3. The claim of the petitioner is based on occurrences taking place on 20.5.1971 and 29.6.1975 when he was a Sub-Inspector of Police and was posted respectively as Officer-in-charge, Bakhtiyarpur Police Station and Officer-in-charge, Sahar Police Station. In regard to the occurrence of 20.5.1971, the Inspector General of Police recommended the appellants -case for police medical for gallantry to the State Government on 12.4.1973. The State Government took its own time for making its recommendation to the Government of India; the recommendation was finally made by Annexure 5 (undated) to the writ petition. In regard to the occurrence of 29.6.1975, the Superintendent of Police, Bhojpur made the proposal for the award of Presidents Police Medal to the appellant on 27.7.1975. The State Government after the usual delay sent its recommendation to the Government of India on 15.11.1980 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition). 4. The instructions on the subject require that a recommendation for the award of gallantry medals should be sent to the Government of India in the Ministry of Home Affairs which one year of the incident. In this case, the recommendations reached the Government of India after a delay of several years and it was presumably on that ground that the recommendations in favour of the appellant were rejected by the Central Government and its decision was communicated to the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Home (Special) Department by letter dated 21.3.1979. In this case, the recommendations reached the Government of India after a delay of several years and it was presumably on that ground that the recommendations in favour of the appellant were rejected by the Central Government and its decision was communicated to the Secretary, Government of Bihar, Home (Special) Department by letter dated 21.3.1979. In that letter, it was stated that the recommendation for grant of police medal to Shri S.N. Dubey was considered but because 8 years had passed since the occurrence took place, it would not be possible to grant him the medal after such a long delay. 5. The appellant was admittedly aware of the rejection of his case for grant of the medal but he let the matter rest at that stage. 6. In November, 1996 he filed C.W.J.C. No. 11568 challenging the decision of the Government of India dated 21.3.1979 relying upon the order of the Supreme Court dated 26.2.1996 in Civil Appeal No.--of 1996 arising from S.L.P. No. 23437 of 1994. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 14.5.1997. In that order, it was observed that initially the Court was reluctant to entertain the petitioners claim in view of the inordinate delay in filing the case but it was brought to its notice that in another case on the recommendation of a Member of Parliament in the matter of refusal of medal on the ground of delay, the case was reconsidered by the Union of India and the Presidents Medal was awarded to the concerned policeman. Taking that as a precedent and observing that equity which was in favour of the petitioner demanded fair play, the Court quashed the earlier decision of the Union of India dated 21.3.1979 and directed the Home Secretary to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order after examining the claim of the petitioner on its own merit. 7. In the judgment and order coming under appeal before, us, the learned Single Judge has tried to show that the reliance placed by the appellant-writ petitioner on the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 23437 of 1994 was quite misplaced and the facts of the case before the Supreme Court were quite different from the facts of the appellants case. The fact, however, remains that the earlier decision of the Union of India dated 21.3.1979 was quashed by judgment and order dated 14.5.1997 earlier passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11568 of 1996 and the respondent authorities were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner on merits. 8. In pursuance of the Courts direction, the concerned authorities in the Union of India duly reconsidered the appellants claim and rejected it on merits by order dated 1.4.1998. The relevant extract from the order dated 1.4.1998 is as follows-- That in pursuance of the above said directions of the Hon ble High Court of Patna, the cases for award of police Medals for Gallantry to Shri S.N. Oubey, the then Sub-Inspector of Police (now DSP) in recognition of his actions of 20.5.1971 and 29.6.1975 were considered. After due consideration of all the attending circumstances, it has been held that neither of these actions of Shri Dubey merit recognition by the award of police Medal for Gallantry. 9. Not satisfied by the consideration of his case on merits or rather by the result of it, the petitioner challenged the above order once again before the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10836 of 1999. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 14.2.2000. The Court did not accept the petitioners objections against the decision of the Union of India but observed that he should file a representation before the Home Secretary, Union of India giving the details of his objections to the impugned order dated 1.4.1998; the Home Secretary was in turn asked to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders on it. It was further observed that the concerned respondent was expected to briefly indicate the reasons in case the petitioners grievance was not accepted. 10. In pursuance of the Courts direction, the authorities in the Central Government for a second time, undertook the exercise to reconsider the petitioners claim and by order dated 6.4.2000 once again rejected the claim. From the order, it appears that for considering the claim of the petitioner, the Central Police Award Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Home Secretary himself. The Committee examined the petitioners claim and rejected it by order dated 6.4.2000, the relevant portion of which is as follows : 3. From the order, it appears that for considering the claim of the petitioner, the Central Police Award Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of the Home Secretary himself. The Committee examined the petitioners claim and rejected it by order dated 6.4.2000, the relevant portion of which is as follows : 3. That the said representations from Shri Dubey was considered by the Central Police Awards Committee under the Chairmanship of the Home Secretary and the said Committee did not adjudge either of the above said actions of Shri Dubey dated the 20th May, 1971 and 29th June, 1975 conspicuous enough within the meaning of the Statute and Rules governing the award of these Medals worthy of any of the Gallantry Medals. 4. Now, therefore, it has been decided that the cases for the award of Gallantry Medals to Shri S.N. Dubey for his actions of 20.5.1971 and 29.6.1975 be rejected and he is hereby informed of the above decision accordingly. 11. The decision of the Central Government dated 6.4.2000 was challenged by the petitioner in the third round in C.W.J.C No. 9112 of 2002, from which the present appeal arise. 12. It is thus to be seen even though the petitioners claim was initially rejected on the ground of delay, on the basis of this Courts interventions his claim was twice considered by the competent authority in the Central Government on merits and on both occasions it was rejected. From the above, it is apparent that the petitioners case has received far more attention than normally due in such cases. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that "while making judicial review of the administrative decision, the High Court does not sit as Court of Appeal and its jurisdiction is confined to find out defects, if any, in the decision making process and not in the decision itself." The learned Judge also considered all the objections raised by the petitioner against the decision of the Central Government including the one based on discrimination and found and held that all of them were without any substance or merit. 13. Before us, the petitioner assailed the decision of the Central Government on points that were already urged by him in the earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No, 10836 of 1999 that had not found favour with the Court at that stage. 13. Before us, the petitioner assailed the decision of the Central Government on points that were already urged by him in the earlier writ petition being C.W.J.C. No, 10836 of 1999 that had not found favour with the Court at that stage. He also submitted that the impugned decision of the Central Government suffered from the bias of discrimination because some other police personnel taking part in the same incidents were granted the awarad. The grant of award to the other personnel cannot be said to be discriminatory because it is obvious that different people may play different roles in the same occurrence. 14. In course of arguments, we asked the petitioner for his comments on the observations made in the concluding portion of the order coming under appeal to the effect that the grant of medal to the petitioner at this stage would not earn him any service benefit as he had already been superannuated. To this, he replied that long ago he was given out of turn promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to Inspector of Police. The out-of-turn promotion granted to him was challenged by others in C.W.J.C. Nos. 440 of 1987 and 3591 of 1989. Those two writ petitions were allowed by judgment and. order dated 15.3.1990 and the promotion granted to the petitioner was quashed primarily on the ground that no Medal was awarded to him. The decision of this Court was upheld by the Supreme Court and the petitioners appeal (Civil Appeal No. 2085 of 1990) filed against this Courts judgment was dismissed by order dated 25.4.1991. Before us, the petitioner alleged that the High Courts decision in those cases was due to "a fraud practiced on the Court by the bureaucrats". He added that he had filed an application u/s. 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure being Criminal Misc. No. 31049 of 1999 for taking suitable action against the officer(s) concerned. He further submitted that he was seeking the Gallantry Medals for his actions of 1971 and 1975 because the grant of the Medals would restore his promotions that were taken away from him by the decision of this Court in the year 1990. The appellant thus seems to be pursuing his claim not for the Medals as such but for his promotion after losing before this Court and the Supreme Court. 15. The appellant thus seems to be pursuing his claim not for the Medals as such but for his promotion after losing before this Court and the Supreme Court. 15. Having heard the petitioner at great length and having perused the judgment and order coming under appeal and the records of the other connected case, we are satisfied that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Writ Court and this matter warrants no interference by this Court. 16. We would like to advise the appellant to gracefully put the matters concerning his previous service behind him and to focus his attention and energies to his current vocation to seek the reward of his newly chosen profession. 17. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.