Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 491 (PNJ)

Lady Constable Aruna Kumari v. State of Haryana

2023-02-01

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO, SUKHVINDER KAUR

body2023
JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to recommend the name of the petitioner for promotion list B-1 and to promote her to the rank of Head Constable in the District Gurugram from the very day other similarly situated officials had been recommended/promoted along with all other consequential service benefits. Background facts 2. The Writ Petitioner joined as Female Constable in Haryana Police on 21.07.2011. 3. On 09.10.2013, she was posted on general duty in Metro Police at Police Station, Sector 29, Gurugram. She received telephonic orders to report at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram and join as a lady member in the raiding party. 4. On receiving telephonic orders, she departed for Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram and reached at 9.30 P.M. on 09.10.2013. The entry with regard to arrival of the petitioner was recorded at rapat roznamcha Register at Sr. No.53 which is translated and annexed with the Writ Petition as Annexure P-1. 5. The raiding party was formed to make arrest and investigation in case FIR No.126 of 2013 registered under Sections 323, 325, 393, 354, 452, 294 of the IPC and sections 25, 54, 59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram against a most wanted criminal namely Vicky Kadian. 6. The petitioner was the sole female official in the raiding party and there were other members of raiding party by name SI Dinesh Kumar ADD/SHO, P/SI Pardhuman, P/SI Devinder, ASI Anil Kumar 588, HC Parmod 2232, HC Pardeep Kumar 1902, C Sunil Kumar 2879, C Sandeep 1864, C Sanjeet 2053, C Satbir 5/551 and C Satinder 3269. 7. The entry with regard to the the departure of the said raiding party for his arrest was recorded at Sr. No.55 at 10.15 P.M. on 09.10.2013. 8. The said criminal was arrested by the Police Party after there was firing by him on the Police Party in which nobody was hurt, and fresh FIR No.484 dt.10.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) was registered against him under Sections 186, 353, 307 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act with Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram. 9. 8. The said criminal was arrested by the Police Party after there was firing by him on the Police Party in which nobody was hurt, and fresh FIR No.484 dt.10.10.2013 (Annexure P-2) was registered against him under Sections 186, 353, 307 of IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act with Police Station Palam Vihar, Gurugram. 9. Pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the petitioner who was also named in the FIR as a member in the raiding party, joined in the investigation, and got recorded her statement under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. which is annexed as Annexure P-3. 10. The petitioner, along with other constables who were part of the raiding team for the arrest of the Vicky Kadian, was also awarded appreciation letter of first class, and entry regarding the same was recorded in the Conduct Entries of October,2013 the petitioner vide order No.1873 dt.23.10.2013. Vide Annexure P-4, this was informed to petitioner when she applied under the RTI Act, 2005. 11. However, only constable Sunil Kumar 2879/GGN, Constable Satender Kumar 3269/GGN, Constable Sandeep No.1864/GGN and Constable Sanjeet were recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurgaon (Respondent No.4) for promotion list B-1 against 10% bravery seats for excellent assistance in the arrest of the criminal-Vicky Kadian who was allegedly involved in 59 criminal cases and was carrying cash reward of Rs. 70,000/- by the DGP, Haryana on his arrest. The recommendation of the aforesaid individuals dt.30.05.2014 is annexed as Annexure P-5. 12. On the basis of the said recommendation, the above individuals had been promoted to the post of Head Constable on 09.09.2015 against 10% quota for the year 2014, vide appointment order dt.11.09.2015 Annexure P-7. Contention of the petitioner 13. The petitioner alleges that though she was the sole female member of the Police Party formed to arrest Vicky Kadian on 09.10.2013, and had also showed exemplary courage in his arrest, but only the male constables, who were part of the raiding team, were recommended for promotion list B-1 against 10% bravery quota in May 2014, but the petitioner was not informed about these recommendations, and the petitioner's case was not considered for such promotion under the 10% bravery quota in spite of the fact that she also received appreciation letter of first class. She alleged this was gender discrimination and that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated. She alleged this was gender discrimination and that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India have been violated. 14. The petitioner contended that though she approached the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Head Quarters, Gurugram, and other officials to do justice to her, but her efforts did not succeed. 15. The petitioner then filed CWP No.5265 of 2020 before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to recommend her name for promotion list B-1 against 10% bravery quota, and thereby to promote her to the rank of Head Constable in the District Gurugram from the date on which other similarly situated officials had been recommended/promoted along with other consequential benefits. 16. The Home Department filed reply in the said Writ Petition that her name was not recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (West) Gurugram, and so she was not found eligible for the same. 17. Vide order dt.24.08.2020, CWP No.5265 of 2020 was dismissed as non-maintainable on the ground that the petitioner did not make any representation to the authorities concerned regarding her grievance. The High Court directed her to make appropriate representation to the authorities concerned and the respondents were directed to examine it and pass an appropriate speaking order at the earliest but not later than two months from the date of receipt of such representation. 18. The petitioner then submitted representation dt.03.09.2020 (Annexure P-10) to the Director General of Police, Haryana, Panchkula. The same was however rejected by the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram vide order dt.30.10.2020 (Annexure P-11). 19. In the impugned order dt.30.10.2020, the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram mentioned that three teams were constituted to arrest Vicky Kadian on the intervening night of 9/10.10.2013, but he did not even mention that the petitioner was part of any such teams, though the presence of the petitioner was borne out by: (a) Annexure P-1-rapat roznamcha, (b) Annexure P-2-FIR No.484 dt.10.10.2013 lodged by the Inspector/SHO, Police Station, Palam Vihar Gurugram (c) Annexure P-3-statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 161 of the Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 484 dt.10.10.2013 in relation to the said incident, and (d) Annexure P-4-information obtained under the RTI Act, 2015 that entry of appreciation of first class regarding arrest of the criminal Vicky Kadian was recorded in the Conduct Entries of the month of October 2013 of the petitioner also along with other male constables. 20. P.C. in FIR No. 484 dt.10.10.2013 in relation to the said incident, and (d) Annexure P-4-information obtained under the RTI Act, 2015 that entry of appreciation of first class regarding arrest of the criminal Vicky Kadian was recorded in the Conduct Entries of the month of October 2013 of the petitioner also along with other male constables. 20. The respondent No.5, Naresh Kumar, who was the SHO, Police Station, Palam Vihar has filed a short written statement stating categorically that role of the petitioner was identical to that of other constables namely Constable Sunil Kumar 2879/GGN, Constable Satender Kumar 3269/GGN, Constable Sandeep 1864/GGN and Constable Sanjeet who were recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram for promotion List B-1 against 10% bravery seats for excellent assistance in arrest of the criminal Vicky Kadian. 21. We find it strange that the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram ignored all this material evidence, and did not even mention in his order that she was one of the participants of the raiding party formed for the arrest of the said criminal. 22. He also held that the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria for selection in list B-1 of 2014 under 10% quota for bravery as she had not completed 5 years minimum service required for admission in B-1 list against the 10% bravery quota. 23. We fail to see how a promotion for exhibiting bravery would have any connection with the minimum period of service required for promotion under the 10% quota/admission in B-1 list. 24. If the respondents can consider for bringing on list B-1 after completion of mere 2 years' of service, persons who have won medals in the International sports events like Olympics, Asian Games, Common Wealth Games, and similar International sports events, why they should deprive a person, that too a woman constable, who had exhibited exceptional bravery from such benefit on the ground of non-completion of minimum 5 years' service, is not explained by the respondents. 25. The other basis mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not found to have displayed an act of exceptional courage which facilitated the arrest of the hardcore criminal, and this was only a part of her duty. 26. 25. The other basis mentioned in the impugned order is that the petitioner was not found to have displayed an act of exceptional courage which facilitated the arrest of the hardcore criminal, and this was only a part of her duty. 26. In the FIR No.484 dt.10.10.2013 ( Annexure P-2)got registered by the I Insp/SHO of P.S.PalamVihar, it is stated that the accused-Vicky Kadian was travelling in a Car at fast speed, that barricades were put up to stop the Car with the help of all accompanying officials, that the petitioner was also a part of the said group, that accused put his Car on the officials carrying the barricades, and the officials ran immediately and saved themselves from the Car by putting iron barricades in front of it, and surrounded it from all 4 sides. It was further stated that the criminal then fired on the police party (which included the petitioner) with his revolver but the shots missed them. 27. This means that the petitioner was also running the risk for her life from the shots fired from the revolver of the criminal and had exhibited bravery by putting iron barricades in front of the Car along with other officials involved in the raid, and had surrounded the Car from all 4 sides. 28. This fact was also stated in the statement given by her under Section 161 Cr.P.C vide Annexure P-3. The said statement also reveals that the petitioner along with other constables overpowered the accused. This statement was recorded by the SHO, Palam Vihar, Gurugram on 10.10.2013. 29. The fact that there is an entry of appreciation of first class regarding arrest of the said criminal which had been recorded in the Conduct Entries of the month of October 2013 for the petitioner also is corroborated by Annexure P-4-information obtained under the RTI Act by the petitioner. 30. As stated above, the respondent No.5, Naresh Kumar, who was the SHO, Police Station, Palam Vihar has filed a short written statement stating categorically that role of the petitioner was identical to that of other constables namely Constable Sunil Kumar 2879/GGN, Constable Satender Kumar 3269/GGN, Constable Sandeep 1864/GGN and Constable Sanjeet who were recommended by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram for promotion List B-1 against 10% bravery seats for excellent assistance in arrest of the criminal Vicky Kadian. 31. 31. No material is placed on record by respondents to controvert this evidence about the petitioner's participation or bravery. 32. Therefore, the observation of the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram that the petitioner was not found to have displayed an act of exceptional courage does not represent the true factual position and is belied by the above record. 33. The contents of the written statement filed by the respondents are identical to that of the impugned order, and material evidence relating to participation of the petitioner in the raid was again deliberately suppressed therein. 34. In this country where there is a need to maintain law and order, women constables like the petitioner, who are also made to face dangers of policing while apprehending hardened criminals, have to be rewarded for exceptional bravery shown by them while assisting the male constables. They cannot be discriminated against by the respondents. 35. The further stand that recommendation for bravery is made on merit and was not on gender discrimination as contended by the respondents cannot be accepted in the light of evidence placed on record by the petitioner which is not controverted by the respondents. 36. We are of the opinion that the fearless Police Constables like the petitioner ought to have been placed in the promotion List B-1 against 10% bravery seats by the respondents for showing exceptional bravery in the arrest of the criminal-Vicky Kadian on 10.10.2013 along with other male Constables who participated in the said action without reference to the length of service rendered by her as contained under Rule 13.7(3)(c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to the State of Haryana). 37. Therefore, the impugned order dt.30.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Gurugram is set aside; the respondents are directed to recommend the petitioner's name for promotion list B-1 against 10% bravery quota; and thereby promote her to the Post of Head Constable in the District Gurugram from the same date other members of the raiding party had been recommended/promoted, along with all other consequential service benefits arising thereto. 38. This Writ Petition is thus allowed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- to be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within 4 weeks from today.