S. U. KHAN, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The matter pertains to out of turn promotion in terms of Government Order dated 3. 2. 1994, Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Through the said Government Order it has been provided that those Constables and Sub Inspectors/platoon Commanders of U. P. Police who have shown exemplary courage in performance of their duties should be granted out of turn promotion to encourage them. Under Clause 3 of the said G. O. it is provided that such constables or Sub Inspectors are also entitled for out of turn promotion who have shown exemplary courage in encounter or arrest of hardcore terrorists or hardcore criminals. It has further been provided that those Constables and Sub Inspectors are also entitled for out of turn promotion who have taken risk in performance of their duties. 3. The claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion is based upon his performance in unearthing a gang and its main members involved in forging orders of this High Court, The matter came to light during hearing of Criminal Appeal No. 4733 of 2003, Amit Rastogi v. State of U. P. and others. The matter was monitored by Honble Mr. Justice Amar Saran. The Honble Judge constituted a committee to enquire into the matter including officials of CBCID and police. The Honble Judge in his order dated 28. 7. 2006, passed in the Criminal Appeal, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the writ petition, noticed that initially final report had been submitted but after investigation of the Court serious attention was given to the matter and thereafter it was reported that as many as 7 persons who belonged to a gang engaged in forging orders were identified and sent to jail. Thereafter, the Court observed as follows: "this Court commends the action by the investigating officer as well as Sri Ram Raj Singh 205 head constable (petitioner) and his team who perform their jobs with admirable courage and dedication. Their efficiency should be taken as an object lesson by the CBCID and other agencies, who have not shown any such success stories since this Court has initiated the process of taking a re-look into the cases of forged orders. " 4. Thereafter petitioner was transferred to an other place. The Court took strong exception and through order dated 28. 5. " 4. Thereafter petitioner was transferred to an other place. The Court took strong exception and through order dated 28. 5. 2006 passed in the aforesaid Criminal Appeal directed that petitioner should not be transferred without prior permission of the Court. Copy of order dated 28. 5. 2006 is Annexure 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter, another order was passed in the said Criminal Appeal on 15. 9. 2006 by the same Hon. Judge copy of which is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In that order also it was observed that apart from the case in question where success was shown by Rajeshwar Singh and the petitioner, in other 59 cases which were being investigated by CBCID there has not been any further success. Thereafter, another order was passed in the said Criminal Appeal on 17. 8. 2007 by the same Hon. Judge, copy of which is Annexure 9 to the writ petition. In the said order also the role played by Rajeshwar Singh and the petitioner was strongly appreciated. 5. Annexure 10 to the writ petition is copy of the recommendation made by Rajeshwar Singh, Circle officer concerned to SSP Allahabad. In that report also the role of petitioner was appreciated to a great extent. In the said report it is also mentioned that petitioner during his tenure has been awarded several cash prizes and very good entries in the service book. In the said report the role of petitioner is appreciated at several places. It is quite a long report and at the end it is mentioned that petitioner has shown exemplary courage dedication and foresightedness in performance of his duties. The S. S. P. also made strong recommendation in favour of the petitioner for out of turn promotion under G. O. dated 3. 2. 1994. Copy of the said recommendation dated 29. 11. 2006 is Annexure 11 to the writ petition. D. I. G. Police through his letter dated 1. 12. 2006 made recommendation for out of turn promotion. I. G Police, Allahabad zone also made similar recommendation on 5. 12. 2006, copy of which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition. 6. 2. 1994. Copy of the said recommendation dated 29. 11. 2006 is Annexure 11 to the writ petition. D. I. G. Police through his letter dated 1. 12. 2006 made recommendation for out of turn promotion. I. G Police, Allahabad zone also made similar recommendation on 5. 12. 2006, copy of which is Annexure 13 to the writ petition. 6. However the committee constituted to consider the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion consisting of I. G. Police (Crimes), I. G. Police (Establishment), I. G Police (Personnel) and Additional Director General of Police (Crimes) and Director General of Police in its meeting held on 25. 6. 2007 refused to grant out of turn promotion to the petitioner. The said decision has been challenged through this writ petition. The said decision is contained in Annexure 15 to the writ petition. 7. In the earlier part of the report of the Committee the courageous deeds done by the petitioner have been noticed and it is mentioned that petitioner arrested the accused Suresh Maurya from Bareilly on 8. 4. 2006 showing exemplary courage and recovered stamp, tickets and other documents for manufacturing forged orders of the High Court. Thereafter, it is mentioned that decidedly the petitioner risked his life and showed exemplary courage in unearthing the crime and arresting the accused persons and due to his efforts for the first time such racket was exposed in Uttar Pradesh and that at present there are 7 members of the gang in jail. However, in the end after quoting relevant portion of order of this Court contained in Annexure 5 to this writ petition and order dated 28. 7. 2006 Annexure 6 to the writ petition, rejected the case of the petitioner. The Committee held that apart from the above observation of the High Court there was no evidence available of the acts done and risks taken by the petitioner so that it could be assessed as to whether petitioner had shown exemplary courage and risk in performance of his duties and thereafter grant of out of turn promotion was declined. 8. Apparently, the report is incongruous. First of all in the earlier part the acts done by the petitioner were summarised under the heading of short description of the incident. 8. Apparently, the report is incongruous. First of all in the earlier part the acts done by the petitioner were summarised under the heading of short description of the incident. Moreover the recommendations made by the different authorities which have been discussed in the earlier part of this judgment were available with the committee. In the said reports detailed version of the acts and actions of the petitioner were mentioned. It was also mentioned that petitioner posed as client the head of the gang which was involved in fabricating the orders of this Court. In the impugned report it is not mentioned that actions of the petitioner do not fall within the category of exemplary courage and risk as mentioned in the G. O. of 1994. 9. In the counter affidavit the decision of the committee has been supported for the reasons given by the Committee. 10. Action of Police Officers/officials arresting a suspected criminal is much more commendable than killing him. Killing a suspected criminal in actual, real encounter may be permissible. However, it is much more courageous and risky to arrest a suspected hardcore criminal. Even in actual, real encounters police party is required to injure the fighting/criminals in non-fatal manner and arrest them. Elimination (a term generally used in modern police encounters and detective novels) of suspected criminals, even in actual encounters cannot be said to be warranted by law or too courageous if the avenues of injuring in non-fatal manner and arresting them are not exhausted. 11. Accordingly, in my opinion killing a suspected criminal may not always warrant to grant out of turn promotion in terms of G. O. dated 3. 2. 1994. In any case killing the suspected criminals or terrorists in encounters may not be the only ground for grant of out of turn promotion killing a person may be either courageous or an act of cowardness depending upon the circumstances and the situation. 12. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned recommendations are set aside. Matter is remitted to the Committee concerned to consider it again in the light of observation made in the body of this judgment. .