Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 840 (JHR)

Girish Kumar v. State Of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

2007-11-05

R.R.PRASAD

body2007
JUDGMENT R.R. Prasad, J. 1. This writ application has been filed for quashing the order of the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna as contained in Memo No. 750/X.P.K-14/91 dated 4.2.2000 issued under the signature of Deputy Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Bihar, Patna whereby and whereunder authority refused to give Gallantry Award to the petitioner and consequently did not place the matter concerning out of turn promotion before the Selection Board and at the same time prayer has also been made for issuance of the writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give Gallantly Award to the petitioner and out of turn promotion to the post of Inspector. 2. The case of the petitioner is that on 3.12.1990 while the petitioner had come to the civil court, Muzaffarpur, he saw three criminals making an attempt; to escape from the custody by making indiscriminate firing and exploding bomb all over the places, as a result of which nobody was daring to come near the criminals but it was the petitioner, who without caring for his life came to the rescue of the Police Officers who were trying to catch hold of the criminals and fired shot upon the criminals which hit one of them causing injuries, as a result of which the could be caught hold of and then again this petitioner rescued him from the fury of the crowd and then only he could be brought to the Hospital but succumbed to his injuries and the act of the petitioner found appreciation in the supervision note of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who was supervising that case and made recommendation for awarding Gallantry Award to the petitioner. The then District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur also made recommendation for awarding the petitioner Gallantry Award and subsequently, when the matter came to the knowledge of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Region, he asked for relevant papers and citation concerning Gallantry Award from Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur, who made it available to the Inspector General (Personnel) and at the same time Inspector General, Muzaffarpur also made recommendation for bestowing Gallantry Award as well as out of turn promotion to the petitioner but the matter remained pending before the Inspector General and the Director General of Police for about five years and then on 13.9.1996 Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna instead of bestowing the petitioner with Gallantry Award, awarded a petty sum of Rs. J.000/- but no decision could be taken in terms of notification dated 4.2.1989 whereby Rule 660-C of the Bihar Police Manual 1978 Volume 1 was made amended making provision for out of turn promotion. 3. However, on the other hand, the department almost in similar situation gave one Ram Lala Paswan out of turn promotion and, therefore, petitioner represented the matter before the concerned authority but they did not pay any heed to his representation and, therefore, the petitioner had to file writ application, bearing number C.W.J.C. No. 5400 of 1998 and this Court having taken into consideration the fact and circumstances of the case did observe as follows: In the circumstances, I remit the matter to the respondents-State to determine the question of grant of gallantry award in favour of the petitioner to be taken and communicated to the petitioner within a period of three months from the dated of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. So far as out of turn promotion of petitioner in terms with Rule 660-C of the Bihar Police Manual is concerned, the case is remitted to the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police. So far as out of turn promotion of petitioner in terms with Rule 660-C of the Bihar Police Manual is concerned, the case is remitted to the Director General-cum- Inspector General of Police. He will take into consideration the recommendation of S.P. Muzaffarpur, vide Memo No. 5925 dated 25th November, 1991 and the enclosures attached thereto and determined as to whether the citation made therein can be turned to be citation for operational work in terms with provision of Rule 660-C. If it is found that such citation suffice for out of turn promotion of petitioner to the higher post, he will place the matter before the Selection Board for consideration of case of petitioner for out of turn promotion to the next higher post. 4. Thereafter petitioner again made representation before the authority but the authority without considering the case in right perspective disallowed the prayer of the petitioner to bestow him with Gallantry Award though in similar situation the department gave out of turn promotion to Ram Lala Paswan and Srikant Pandey and even the case of the petitioner was not referred to the competent High-level Committee for consideration of out of turn promotion and therefore, the order impugned is fit to be set aside and the authority be directed to grant reliefs to the petitioner. 5. 5. On the other hand, the case of the respondents as has been made out in the counter affidavit is that petitioner was not a member of the escorting party but was incidentally present in the court premises when the incidence occurred whereby under trial prisoners made an attempt to escape from the custody, the petitioner with a view to secure the recapture fired shot upon one of the criminals causing injuries and due to that he could be apprehended and thus, it was not an act or bravery though it can be appreciated as a good piece of work as he helped in recapturing the culprits which one can normally understand as the part of the duty of the Police Officer and, therefore, when it was found that act done by the petitioner was simply part of his duty never assuming the proportion of an act of bravery the claim of the petitioner was refused and so far question raised regarding discriminatory attitude it was replied that the case of the persons who were awarded Gallantry Award and were given out of turn promotion was quite different as the act of those persons were found to be an act of bravery and under these situation, petitioners case does not fall within the purview of amended Rule 660-C of the Police Manual Rule and hence, petitioner does not deserve any relief. 6. 6. Having heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and after perusal of Annexure A by which the petitioners prayer for awarding him Gallantry Award was refused, it appears that on 3.12.1990 when three under trial prisoners were brought to the civil court premises by the escort party, the miscreants made an attempt to escape from the custody by resorting to firing and by exploding bomb and the petitioner who was incidentally present there did fire upon one of the criminals causing injury to him and then he could be apprehended but this act was not considered to be an act of bravery, rather that was taken to be a part of the duty which a Police Officer is supposed to discharge particularly when miscreants had already been apprehended by the escort party but the miscreants was not in complete command of the escort party and it was the act of the petitioner which made the escort party to have complete command over the miscreant and for that act, he has been awarded for Rs. 1000/-. Under this situation, It would not be proper for this Court to come other conclusion than what the authority has arrived at. 7. So far the matter regarding grant of out of turn promotion is concerned, it may be stated that it is always at the cost of others who, if such promotion, were not granted would have been promoted to the post in ordinary course. The provision regarding out of turn promotion ought, therefore, in my opinion, be very strictly construed. It is the duty of the police to prevent crime and catch the criminal. Every such case cannot be regarded as an act entitling one to have Gallantry Award and then should be rewarded with out of turn promotion at the cost of others. 8. Under these situations, I do not find any merit in this application, Hence, it is dismissed.