Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 159 (ALL)

Constable Driver Charan Singh v. State Of U. P.

2017-01-12

B.AMIT STHALEKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Ram Ji Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 16.01.2014 wherein the names of some persons have been recommended for the President's Gallantry Awards but the name of the petitioner has not been sent. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that a police operation against some terrorists, members of Jaish-e-Mohhamad belonging to Pakistan took place and after encounter terrorists were arrested. Thereafter, a recommendation was sent to the Government for giving President's Gallantry Awards to various persons. It is stated that out of the persons who participated in the operation, names of several persons were sent but the names of 11 persons were not sent including the petitioner. 4. The contention of the petitioner is that he was the Driver of the vehicle in which police personnel were moving and that he had also fired two rounds from his 9 m.m. Pistol as per the F.I.R. at page 72 of the writ petition and therefore, he should also have been considered for receiving the President's Gallantry Award. 5. In my opinion, in such matters the Courts cannot interfere to assess the degree of extraordinary bravery performed by an individual to entitle him to receive the President Gallantry Award. Such an assessment ultimately has to be made by the Authorities themselves on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of involvement of each of the persons so recommended in a police operation entitling them to receive the President's Gallantry Award. Such an assessment requires not only an objective assessment but also a subjective assessment of the individual act of a person involved in such operations entitling them to President's Gallantry Awards. There is no straight jacket formula which can be laid down or guidelines enumerated entitling a person to receive the President's Gallantry Award for extraordinary acts of bravery. Such an assessment requires not only an objective assessment but also a subjective assessment of the individual act of a person involved in such operations entitling them to President's Gallantry Awards. There is no straight jacket formula which can be laid down or guidelines enumerated entitling a person to receive the President's Gallantry Award for extraordinary acts of bravery. Assessment of such extraordinary acts of bravery is always based upon a comparative study of the role discharged by each and every member of the Police party taking part in such an encounter and an assessment of extraordinary bravery entitling a person to the President's Gallantry Award, in my opinion is beyond the compass of the Courts to assess since such assessments are usually based on evaluation of on spot acts and deeds. 6. The contention of the petitioner is that he was the Driver of the Vehicle carrying the police party and he had also fired two rounds. If the petitioner was the Driver and had fired two rounds his role cannot be discounted but whether such an act or deed or performance of duty falls within the parameters of extraordinary act of bravery is beyond the jurisdiction of the Courts to determine and lies exclusively within the domain of the Superior Departmental Authorities to assess. 7. For reasons aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 16.01.2014. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.