Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajender Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 11 February, 2026
1
O.A. No. 1499 of 2018
Item No. 67/Court No. 4
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
O.A. No. 1499/2018
Reserved on: 29.01.2026.
Pronounced on: 11.02.2026.
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Rajender Singh,
Inspector, Crime Branch, Delhi Police,
South-East District, New Delhi
S/o late Sh. Ram Singh,
R/o 107, Sarai Kale Khan,
New Delhi - 110013.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Lieutenant Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through Secretary,
6. Raj Niwas Marg,
Civil Lines, New Delhi,
Delhi - 110 054.
2. Government of NCT of Delhi through
Secretary,
Department of Home,
5th Level, C-Wing, Delhi Secretariat,
New Delhi - 110 002.
3. Commissioner of Police
Police Head Quarters, ITO,
New Delhi - 110 002.
4. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Crime Branch, South-East District,
New Delhi.
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:31:18+05'30'
2
O.A. No. 1499 of 2018
Item No. 67/Court No. 4
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
By way of the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has sought the following relief (s):-
"a) Allow the present Original Application and set aside the Order dated 12.04.2007 of the Incentive Committee and the Orders of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, Governor of NCT of Delhi through Secretary (Home-I) i.e. Order No.F.3/4/2009/HP-I/5258 dated 16.02.2012 and Order No. F.3/4/2009/HP-I/4261 dated 07.11.2016.
b) Direct the Respondents to consider the grant of the Out of Turn Promotion along with all consequential benefits which accrue thereof including seniority, pay and allowances etc. to the applicant for his gallantry and outstanding work in 2004.
c) Grant such other further relief(s) in the facts and circumstances of the present case as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Briefly stated facts, as enumerated from the Original Application, are that the applicant was enlisted in Delhi Police as a Constable (Executive) on 15.03.1988 and has been awarded with numerous Out of Turn Promotions (hereinafter referred to as OTP) in the past for his gallant acts of bravery. The applicant is presently working as Inspector in Crime Brach, District South-East, Delhi. 2.1 The applicant was earlier granted an OTP on 15.03.1996 to the rank of Head Constable for his outstanding work in apprehension and encounter of dreaded criminal Ranpal Gujjar of Western U.P. at the risk of his life on 06.09.1995. The applicant was further promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector on NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 3 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 30.09.1999 on out of turn basis by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi in a public function for his gallant act dated 20.07.1999, in which he nabbed the fleeing robbers who had looted cash of Rs. 5 lakhs along with their weapons at the risk of his life. The applicant was further promoted out of turn to the rank of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in lieu of his extraordinary work done in an encounter on 26.07.2001 in Khirki, Malviya Nagar with the dreaded criminal Mamman, a gangster of Tejpal Gang who had a reward of Rs.1 lakh on his head and was involved in quadruple murder case in Faridabad.
2.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further stated certain facts in connection with the encounter dated 15.10.2004 of the dreaded criminal - Suleman @ Sulla. It is stated that the applicant was entrusted with the tremendous task of nabbing the dreaded and hard-core criminal - Suleman @ Sulla, who was wanted in many heinous crimes and sensational robberies all over Delhi which he had committed through his group of car borne gangsters who used to garget victims carrying heavy cash from banks. The Special Staff of South District was entrusted with the task of locating the gang members and neutralizing them as Suleman @ Sulla was adjudged as the most desperate and professional road robber in Delhi.
2.3 As the applicant was deputed for the aforesaid important task for which he worked very hard by collecting insight and NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: information qua movements of the criminals and also visited Tihar 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 4 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 Jail in order to investigate into the whereabouts of the gangsters from the inmates of Suleman. His painstaking efforts resulted in positive outcome and he was able to trace the hideout of these criminals located at Sector-82, Noida where the criminals evaded their arrest. Resultantly, the applicant along with five Head Constables and Constables camped in Faridabad areas for a week and successfully located criminals' new important hideouts and collected intelligence in respect of vehicles in which Suleman and his associates travelled.
2.4 It is further averred that on 15.10.2004, two police teams were set up to nab the criminals, one of which was led by Sub- Inspector Vijay Singh - positioned at Ghaziabad, and the other being led by the applicant as In-charge - positioned at Faridabad. The applicant's team received a specific tip-off and quickly divided his team into two parts with two vehicles and both counterparts took position. At about 10.30 am, the applicant spotted a Santro car and started following the same and after a hot-pursuit, the applicant tried to overtake the said Santro car in order to nab the occupants of the fleeing car. One of the occupants of the car, who was on the driving seat, sensed the danger and escaped out of the car taking the advantage of the vast open jungle adjoin the area. But the other person sitting in the car opened fire at the police team and the gunshots hit the front left side door of the vehicle i.e. inches close to where the applicant was sitting. Fortunately, the gunshots NEETU Digitally could neither hit at the door nor pass through the door.
signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 5 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 Subsequently, the applicant warned the criminals to surrender and opened caution fire in the air and informed the PCR about the firing incident and called for help and back up from nearby PCR vans and asked the driver of his car to continue chasing the Santro car.
2.5 It is further stated that the assailants seeing the hot-pursuit by the applicant's vehicle and other police party's vehicle turned their vehicle towards Aya Nagar village and vehicles of police teams kept continuously chasing the fleeing car until the applicant's vehicle dashed into the assailant's car and the vehicle skid few yards ahead. Meanwhile, the second police party's vehicle driven by Head Constable Shyambir did not leave room for the assailants to reverse back. The driver of said Santro Car took a halt and jumped over the wall and disappeared into the jungle. The other occupant of the car sensed the trap and jumped out of the car and started firing with automatic weapons in the direction of the applicant and other police officers. It was a very critical moment for the applicant as a volley of bullets was received by him from the criminals and he was in their direct line of fire. The applicant, however, very wittingly tried to stop the criminals' firing by any means putting his own life in danger. Fortunately, before the criminals could cause harm to the life of any policeman, the applicant along with other policemen fired in self-defence at the criminals. Out of total 16 rounds, fired by the police party in retaliation, five rounds were NEETU Digitally fired by the applicant, which hit the dreaded criminal Suleman.
signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 6 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 Subsequently, one 7.62 bore Italian Pistol along with five empty cartridges and Rs. 25,000/- in cash were recovered from the criminals.
2.6 The aforesaid outstanding performance and gallantry shown by the applicant and his team were acknowledged by senior officers and the detail of the good work done in the encounter was duly submitted in the citation sent to Police Headquarters (PHQ). 2.7 It is again stated that the grant of OTP has wrongly been decided adversely against the applicant as he has been granted Asadharan Karya Puraskar (AKP) with cash reward of Rs. 5,000/- vide Order dated 09.11.2004 whereas Constables Bir Singh (No. 1771/SD) and Shailesh (No. 929/SD), who were part of the applicant's team in the said encounter, have been granted OTPs. The applicant has been discriminated as the gallantry shown by him at the direct risk of life in the said encounter is not less than the act of any other team members. Moreover, Sub-Inspector Vijay Singh, who headed the second team, was also granted AKP irrespective of the fact that he was positioned at Ghaziabad whereas the incident took place at Faridabad where the applicant's team was positioned. Though the dreaded criminal was shot down by the applicant's gun, yet he has not been granted OTP whereas other two Constables working under his supervision whose roles, positioning, direction and line of fire was designated by the applicant, have been granted OTP.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 7 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 2.8 It is further stated that PHQ has differentiated the gallantry shown by the applicant from the efforts of other Sub- Inspector Vijay Singh and applicant's outstanding work has been assessed and adjudged lesser as compared to the Constables who have been granted promotion in the present case, despite the fact that the applicant has done commendable work in his career as a policeman and has finally shown the highest degree of gallantry and devotion to duty in Suleman encounter. Moreover, the gallantry work shown by the applicant cannot be subdued and he duly deserves an ad-hoc promotion under Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 instead of grant of AKP.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
3. The learned counsel for the applicant contends that the action of the respondents is arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the applicant has been subjected to unfair treatment inasmuch as the respondents have failed to consider the relevant facts and applicable rules in their proper perspective. The counsel further argues that the impugned action suffers from non-application of mind and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the applicant, despite being fully eligible and entitled under the governing provisions, the respondents have denied the legitimate rights of the applicant without any justifiable reason, thereby Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA 16:31:18+05'30' 8 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 necessitating the intervention of this Tribunal. Learned counsel urged the following grounds:-
3.1 The Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi has passed non-speaking orders dated 16.02.2012 and 07.11.2016 arbitrarily and without application of mind and without according sufficient opportunity to the applicant to be heard.
3.2 The Incentive Committee in its meeting held on 12.04.2007 failed to appreciate the gallant acts of the applicant, his unblemished and outstanding record of service and exceptional devotion to the duty and service of police. The incentive committee further failed to suffice the applicant with sufficient reasoning and grounds as to why it rejected the request of the applicant for grant of Out of Turn Promotion instead of Asadharan Karya Puraskar for the gallant act of encounter of the dreaded criminal Suleman on 15.10.2004, even when the other two team members in the applicant's team who were also a part of the encounter incident were granted an OTP for the encounter of Suleman.
3.3 The Order of Commissioner of Police Delhi vide his order dated 25.04.2007 (Annexure-A/4) also failed to state with sufficient reasoning and grounds as to why the applicant did not deserve an OTP for the encounter of Suleman. That the CP also failed to notice any merit at all in the applicant's case and subsequently rejected the applicant's request for grant of OTP instead of AKP referring to NEETU Digitally the decision of the Incentive Committee.
signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 9 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 3.4 The representation of the applicant to the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi as on 18.01.2008 was declined by the LG vide his note dated 25.01.2012 which also failed to state the sufficient grounds or reasoning as to why the applicant's request for grant of OTP instead of AKP was without any merit and subsequently rejected on 25.01.2012 without according any opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant. 3.5 The representation made by the applicant to the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi as on 21.10.2013, 01.01.2014, and 23.05.2016 was also declined by the Hon'ble L.G. by passing a non-speaking order again on 07.11.2016 by simply recording that nothing new was found in order to interfere with the decision of his predecessor regarding the applicant's request for review of decision in the matter of grant of OTP on gallant act basis. 3.6 Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 accords the Commissioner of Police the power to grant ad-hoc promotion to the officers who have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to the duty. It is respectfully submitted that even though the case of the applicant falls under the purview and ambit of the said rule, he was not granted the ad-hoc promotion in spite of several request letters and representations made to the Special Commissioner of Police and Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor of NCT of Delhi.
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 10 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 3.7 The out of turn promotion was granted to the Constables who formed part of the team led by the applicant, but the same was not granted to the applicant. This only reflects that the order passed by the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor was not only unreasonable and partial but also unjust, discriminatory and against the principles of natural justice and fair play.
3.8 The actions of the Applicant in encounter of Suleman has been adjudged as gallant by the Incentive Committee constituted by the Commissioner of Police and therefore, he had been recommended for grant of Asadharan Karya Puraskar (AKP). Once the action of the applicant has been adjudged as brave beyond the call of duty and deserving of reward, there was no reason for the competent authority, i.e. Commissioner of Police, to grant AKP instead of OTP, even when others in the team led by the applicant who had acted under the instructions of the applicant and had been adjudged gallant and deserving of reward, have been granted OTP. This action of the respondents is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and is an attempt to lessen and narrow down the ambit of the prodigious gallantry shown by the applicant being team leader vis-a-vis his team members and is also extremely demoralizing, disheartening and demotivational for the applicant at the same time.
3.9 It is pertinent to state that Asadharan Karya Puraskar (the award) which was granted to the applicant is not a recognized NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 11 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 award under the Delhi Police Act, 1978 read with Delhi Police Rules, 1980.
3.10 In a similar case wherein the encounter of Brij Mohan Tyagi and his associate Anil Malhotra took place in September 1994. Sub- Inspector Rajbir Singh Malik (Now D-1/309) was granted out of turn promotion retrospectively from February, 1998 and that such grant was bestowed upon him solely through his representations, he was awarded promotion from back date i.e. November 1994 and he was also a recipient of the President's Police Medal for Gallantry. 3.11 In the case of ASI Devender Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. ((2010) ILR 1 Delhi 486), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that respondents were not justified in declining out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had already received two out of turn promotions in the past and directed them to accord the benefit of out of turn promotion to the petitioner. It subsequently held that the existing Rules do not impose any restriction to the number of grants of out of turn promotions to a particular officer/police official and that there is no such bar that a third out of turn promotion cannot be granted to a deserving officer, who has shown devotion to the duty and displayed spectacular gallantry. That in the aforesaid judgment the decision denying out of turn promotion on the alleged ground of the petitioner having already received two out of turn promotions was held to be arbitrary and not sustainable. NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 12 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 3.12 In the case of Umesh Barthwal Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. (2013 (135) DRJ 372), the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court disposed the Writ Petitions filed by the respondents (GNCT Delhi & Ors.) upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal and directing that the petitioners (police officers) would be granted notional promotion with effect from the date when vacancies ensued in the promotional posts and that they would be entitled to seniority in the promotional post by treating them as having been promoted from said date as per the rule applicable to inter-se seniority of promotees and direct recruits. The petitioners (police officers) had filed original applications to the Central Administrative Tribunal against the orders of the Commissioner of Police which denied them the approval for the grant of Out of turn Promotion for gallant acts of bravery and exceptional devotion to the duty. 3.13 The applicant was denied the opportunity to be heard despite repeated representations made by him for grant of permission to appear in orderly room. That therefore, the said orders of the Hon'ble L.G., Delhi are bad in law and liable to be set aside CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
4. Learned counsel, by referring to the contents of the counter reply filed on 27.07.2018 on behalf of respondents, submitted that DCP/South District sent two citations to the Jt. C.P./Southern NEETU Digitally Range, New Delhi vide his letter dated 20.10.2004 recommending signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 13 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 the names of the applicant, HCs Shyambir, Phool Singh, Consts. Beer Singh, Shailesh and SI Vijay Singh for the grant of out of turn promotion to the next higher ranks in connection with an encounter with the dreaded criminal Suleman @ Sulla on 25.10.2004. The Jt. C.P./Southern Range, New Delhi recommended their names for the grant of out of turn promotion/ Asadharan karya Puruskar (OTP/ AKP) as mentioned below vide his note dated 25.10.2004 :-
Out of turn Promotion
1. Ct. (Exe.) Beer Singh No. 1771/SD
2. Ct. (Exe.) Shailesh, No. 929 /SD Asadharan Karya Puraskar
1. SI (Exe.) (Now inspr.) Rajender Singh, No. 2566/SD, 1184/D, D/2207 (applicant)
2. SI (Exe.,) Vijay Singh No. D/3088
3. HC (Exe.) Shyambir No. 1765/SD
4. HC (Exe.) Phool Singh No. 3305/SD 4.1 It is further submitted that on the recommendation of the then Jt. CP /Southern Range, New Delhi, the then C.P., Delhi approved OTP/ AKP to the police officials as mentioned above. Since the name of the applicant along-with three other police officials were recommended for the grant of A.K.P. by the then Jt. CP /SR, the then C.P., Delhi approved AKP to them. Accordingly, the applicant NEETU Digitally was granted AKP with cash reward of Rs. 5000/- vide this Hdqrs.
signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 14 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 U.O. No. 80659-758/CB-IV /PHQ dated 09.11.2004. It is also pertinent to mention here that the applicant submitted various representations for the grant of out of turn promotion (OTP) instead of Asadharan Karya Puraskar (AKP) which were examined in this Hdqrs. and rejected. On receipt of his representation from DCP /New Delhi District, his case was also re-considered by the Incentive Committee in its meeting held on 12.04.2007 and rejected. The recommendation of the Committee was approved by the then C.P. Delhi. He also submitted a representation addressed to the L.G. Delhi, which was received from DCP/Crime & Rlys., Delhi vide his office memo. dated 29.10.2008. The same was sent to the Dy. Secretary (Home) Govt. of NCT of. Delhi vide this Hdqrs. letter dated 24.03.2009. The Govt. of NCT of Delhi asked certain documents/information on different occasions and accordingly, the same were sent to the Dy. Secy. /Jt. Secy (Home-I), GNCT, Delhi. Finally, the Jt. Secretary (Home), GNCT, Delhi informed vide letter dated 25.05.2011 that "the officer has been suitably compensated by the competent authority and there does not appear to be any more reason for further grievance". Accordingly, the applicant was informed vide this Hdqrs. endst. dated 01.06.2011. In between the applicant submitted another representation to Hon'ble L. G., Delhi which was received in this Hdqrs. from OSD to L.G., Delhi, vide U.O. dated 07.10.2009, for furnishing comments. Thereafter, the Jt. Secretary (Home) Govt. of NCT of Delhi informed vide letter dated 16.02.2012 that the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 15 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 representation of applicant for grant of OTP has been submitted before Hon'ble L.G. Delhi. The Hon'ble L.G. Delhi decided that "The decision in the matter taken by C.P. should be allowed to prevail". Accordingly the applicant was informed through DCP/Crime & Rlys., Delhi vide this Hdqrs. endst. dated 06.03.2012. Thereafter, the applicant submitted another application dated 01.01.2014, addressed to the L.G., Delhi which was sent to O.S.D. to Lt. Governor, Raj. Niwas, New Delhi vide letter dated 11.02.1014. The Dy. Secretary (Home-I), GNCT, Delhi vide letter dated 09.06.2014 asked about the recommendation of C.P., Delhi regarding grant of OTP to the applicant. The then C.P., Delhi did not recommend OTP to the applicant observing that AKP granted to him is appropriate. The Dy. Secretary (Home-I), GNCTD was informed accordingly vide letter dated 14.08.2014. 4.2 The Dy. Secretary (Home-I), GNCT, Delhi vide letter dated 27.06.2016 sent copy of another representation dated 23.05.2016 of the applicant addressed to Hon'ble L.G., Delhi regarding request for personal hearing for grant of OTP on gallant act basis, for furnishing comments, which were sent to GNCTD vide letter dated 10.08.2016. Again on 07.09.2016, the Dy. Secy. (Home-I)/GNCTD sought some information/clarifications and the same were sent to GNCTD vide letter dated 08.09.2016.
4.3 In response to the above, the Dy. Secy. (Home-I)/GNCTD vide his letter dated 24.10.2016 conveyed that the representation of SI NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 (now Inspr.) Rajender Kumar for out of turn promotion to the rank 16:31:18+05'30' 16 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 of Inspector (Exe.) has been examined and rejected by the Hon'ble L.G., Delhi. As the Hon'ble L.G., Delhi has noted that all the facts mentioned in the representation by the appellant was considered by the predecessor of Hon'ble L.G., Delhi who vide his note dated 25.01.2012 declined the request of Sh. Rajender Kumar for OTP. Further, Hon'ble L.G., Delhi has not found anything new in the representation to interfere the decision taken by his predecessor. Accordingly, a copy of GNCTD's above said letter dated 24.10.2016 was endorsed to DCP/East District, Delhi with the direction to inform the applicant under his proper receipt, which may be kept in record, vide this Hdqrs. endst. dated 07.11.2016. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the applicant has already been promoted to the rank of Inspr. on OTP basis vide this Hdqrs. notification dated 16.11.2016. Now the applicant has filed the present O.A REBUTTAL TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
5. In response to the counter reply filed by the respondents, the applicant filed a rejoinder on 31.08.2018 reiterating the averments and submissions as made in the OA.
ANALYSIS
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the pleadings and material available on record. The core Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA issue that arises for consideration is whether the denial of Out of Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA 16:31:18+05'30' 17 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 Turn Promotion (OTP) to the applicant for the gallant act performed during the encounter dated 15.10.2004 is arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly when other members of the same team were granted OTP.
7. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the applicant was head of the police team which led the encounter with the dreaded criminal Suleman @ Sulla and that applicant's role in the operation was that of team leader. It is equally undisputed that, upon consideration of the recommendations, the competent authority granted Asadharan Karya Puraskar (AKP) with a cash reward to the applicant, while OTP was granted to certain members of the team, who were junior to the applicant in the said team. It is an admitted position that the applicant played a pivotal role in the encounter with the dreaded criminal Suleman @ Sulla. The material on record reveals that the applicant not only led the team positioned at Faridabad but also actively participated in the hot pursuit, faced direct firing from the criminals, and retaliated in self-defence, resulting in the neutralization of the criminal. The recovery of arms, ammunition and cash further substantiates the seriousness of the operation and the risk undertaken by the applicant.
8. Relevant portion of the FIR No. 620/04 u/s 154 Cr. P.C. dated 15.10.2024 reads as under:-
NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA "Statement of S.I. Rajendar Singh No. 2566 SD Special Staff South SHARMA Date:
Delhi, New Delhi (PIS No. 28880234) 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 18 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 Stated that I am posted at special staff south district as sub inspector. Today on 15.10.04 at about 6 am, vide DD. No. 12 daily diary special staff received an information that Suleman a resident of Delhi, who was involved in case of crime like robbery, dacoity etc. in Delhi. Recently he committed crime by using a Santo Car, Suleman had shelter at Faridabad, Noida and Rajendar Nagar, Sahibabad (U.P) if raid will be conducted at these places and checked his hideout he will be apprehended. I brought all fact of information into the knowledge of inspector special staff he constituted two team handed by me and SI Vijay Singh. SI Vijay Singh was asked to check his hideout at Rajendar Nagar, Ghaziabad & Noida. I will asked to check his hideout at Faridabad. After that along with HC Shyamveer No. 1765/SD, HC Phool Singh No. 330/SD, CT Harendar No. 1488/SD CT Veer Singh No. 1771/SD took private cars and reached at Badarpur border with informer, at about 8 am informer contacted his source who informed that Suleman along with a co-accomplice has left the Faridabad with the intention of dacoity in some farm house in Aya Nagar area in a Santo car. I along with staff and informer rushed to towards to Aya Nagar. At about 10:30 am a Santro Car Grey colour seen coming towards Janpur Road to bandh road Aya Nagar, informer told me it might be Suleman car on this. I drove my car ahead to that car informer conformed that a person sitting with the driver is Suleman. After this I made a signal to our second car to follow the car I informed the south district control room by telephone and put my car in front of Santo car, sensing danger person sitting on driving seat jumped near by the wall & disappeared in the forest and person sitting near driving seat opened the door of his car and fired on me. I warned that person but he opened fire on me I in my self defense opened fire on Suleman with my Service revolver and other staff also fired in their self defense, mean while driver managed to escape from the spot and above said person Suleman got some bullet injuries. Who tried to kill the police party by firing action be taken against him. Sd SI Rajendar Singh attested SI Rajesh Kumar Mishra I/C PP IGNOW Duty officer PS Mehroli today after receiving DD No. 8A I along with SHO/Mehroli, HC Mahenda No. 340/SD reached the place if occurrence Band Road Jannapur Road Aya Nagar, SI Rajendar above said along with staff meet me and found a gray coloured santro car DL4C J513 facing Aya Nagar and a maruti car 800CC white colored No. DL6CD 2667 having a bullet ride len spot on its front right gate team also found 3 empty cartridge of 9 MM scattered and one black colour pistol having a pint "MADE IN ITALY" 5 empty cartridge, Santro Car also has bullet mark on the left side. A lot of blood also found on the spot. On search of said Santro Car 8 live cartridge (32 bore), 1 (.315 bore) and a county made pistol were recovered from it dash board and some currency note from the car. SI Rajender Said injured was taken to AIIMS Hospital by the PCR Van. The scene of crime must be inspected by crime team so same was preserved. On the statement and inspection of scene of crime offence u/s 186/353/307 IPC & 25/27/54/59 Arms Act made out so rukka is being sent to PS through Ct. Rajender No. 931/SD, case be registered and information given to me, crime team & photographer sent to place of offence as soon as possible. I along with SHO & other staff is busy in investigation date & time of office 15.10.04 at 10:50 A.M. place of office Bandh Road Ayanagar, Janapur Road. Date & time of sending rukka-15.10.04 at 12:45 P.M. Sd English SI Rajesh Kumar NEETU Digitally I/C PP IGNOU No. D-975, PIS N0.16950122 police action after signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 receiving the rukka a case u/s given above got registered and copy 16:31:18+05'30' 19 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 of FIR with original rukka through Ct. Rajender Singh sent to SI Rajesh Kumar and crime team & photographer informed through telephone. Copy of same will be sent to senior officer by Dak ASI DO."
9. The primary grievance of the applicant is that despite being the team leader and allegedly having fired the shots that neutralized the criminal, he was treated differently from certain Constables who were granted OTP. The applicant has, therefore, invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution alleging hostile discrimination. The respondents have not disputed the gallantry and devotion to duty displayed by the applicant. In fact, the very grant of Asadharan Karya Puraskar (AKP) establishes official recognition of his bravery. This also confirms that the applicant is an outstanding performer who despite not been given OTP for the said incident did not allow his moral to dip and was at last promoted to the rank of Inspector on an out of turn basis vide notification dated 16.11.2016. This subsequent development bears enough testimony that the applicant possess outstanding merit, however, this does not mitigate the grievance of applicant in the present Original Application. However, the controversy arises from the fact that while the applicant was only granted AKP, two Constables who were part of the team operating under his leadership were granted Out of Turn Promotion.
10. The principle of equality enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 mandates that similarly situated persons must be treated alike unless a reasonable classification supported by intelligible NEETU Digitally signed by differentia is shown. The respondents have failed to place on record NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 20 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 any cogent material explaining how the role and contribution of the applicant was inferior to that of the Constables working under leadership of the applicant as team members, who were granted OTP. On the contrary, the facts indicate that the applicant was the team leader and was exposed to equal, if not greater, risk during the encounter.
11. The respondents, in their counter reply, have submitted that the period of limitation of one year commenced from the date on which the applicant's representation was rejected, i.e., 07.11.2016, and expired on 06.11.2017. However, the applicant filed the present Original Application on 02.05.2018, resulting in a delay of approximately six months. It is further contended that the applicant has neither filed any miscellaneous application seeking condonation of delay nor provided any explanation for the said delay. Accordingly, the respondents have argued that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. The contention of the respondents that the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation has been examined. It is relevant to point out that his first representation was decided by Hon'ble L.G. and the said decision is stated to be informed to the applicant through DCP/Crime, Railways, New Delhi vide respondents' letter dated 06.03.2012. However, no such communication, acknowledged by the applicant regarding delivery of said communication dated 06.03.2012, has been placed on NEETU Digitally record by the respondents. Technically, the period of limitation has signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 21 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 started from 07.03.2012 onwards when the first representation of the applicant was decided by the Hon'ble L.G., however, in view of absence of any authentic record produced by the respondents, we are not convinced on the aspect of period of limitation. The respondents further in their reply have stated that the impugned order was passed on 07.11.2016 (Annexure-A/1) and the same was conveyed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Establishment), Police Headquarter, I.P. Estate, New Delhi by Deputy Commissioner of Police, ( Home-I), Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide their letter dated 26.10.2016. A copy of this letter was duly endorsed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, (East District), Delhi by ACP/CB for Deputy Commissioner of Police, (Establishment), Delhi to inform the decision to the applicant against proper receipt, which was to be kept on record. The said is appeared to have been received on 12.12.2017 (however, it is not clear whether this was received by the applicant or by some other person). However, as per the direction contained in the endorsement to Annexure-A/1, the respondents did not produce any record in support of their claim in the counter affidavit. In view of above shoddy and inconsistent maintenance of record, we are not inclined to accept the plea of the respondents that there is a delay. We proceed further and hold the view that it is a settled proposition of law that limitation would ordinarily commence from the date of communication of the order and not merely from the date on which it was passed, particularly when the order adversely affects the NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 22 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 rights and service conditions of an employee. The respondents have failed to furnish any plausible explanation for the belated service of the order. Such delay, in the absence of justification, raises serious concerns regarding administrative fairness and transparency.
Prompt communication of an adverse order is an essential facet of the principles of natural justice, as it enables the aggrieved employee to avail appropriate legal remedies within the prescribed period. Any unexplained delay in this regard necessarily prejudices the employee by curtailing the effective time available for seeking redressal.
12. Further, the decision-making process itself does not inspire confidence. Annexure-A/3 (Colly) does not reveal the basis on which decision to confer Asadharan Karya Puruskar (AKP) with cash reward of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only). For facility of reference, the relevant potion of the order dated 09.11.2004 (Annexure-A/3) is as follows:-
"MOST IMMEDIATE Subject: - Incentive to enrolled Police officers/men for doing excellent work.
The Commissioner of Police, Delhi is pleased to announce the following incentive to the Police Personnel for their excellent work:-
ASADHARAN KARYA PURSAKAR WITH CASH REWARDS OF RS. 5000/- EACH
1. SI (Exe.) Rajender Singh, 2566/SD, (28880234)
2. SI (Exe.) Vijay Singh, D/3088, (16900062)
3. HC (Exe.) Shyambir, 1765/SD, (28900042)
4. HC (Exe.) Phool Singh, 3305/SD, (28880094)" Digitally signed by
NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA 16:31:18+05'30' 23 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 12.1 The orders passed by the competent authorities, including
that of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, are non-speaking and bereft of adequate reasoning, as they do not disclose proper application of mind on the role of the applicant vis-à-vis other team members in the said incident for which OTP is claimed. An order lacking reasons, particularly when it results in differential treatment and arbitrariness by respondents among members of the same operation, cannot withstand judicial scrutiny. Moreover, procedural technicalities should not be allowed to defeat substantive justice, especially where the conduct of the respondents themselves has contributed to the delay. In such circumstances, this Tribunal is of the considered view that the O.A. ought not to be dismissed on the ground of limitation and deserves to be examined on merits.
13. However, it is a settled proposition of law that the grant of out of turn promotion is not a matter of right. Such promotion is in the nature of an incentive and is conferred upon after assessment by the competent authority based on the degree of gallantry, role performed by the employee concerned and other associated relevant factors. Judicial review in such matters is limited to examining the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself, unless it is shown to be patently arbitrary, mala fide or in violation of statutory provisions. Rule 19 (ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 empowers the NEETU Digitally competent authority to grant ad-hoc promotion to officers who signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 24 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty. Once the act of the applicant stood recognized as extraordinary and beyond the call of duty, denial of OTP without justifiable reasons becomes arbitrary. However, Rule 19 of the said Rule reads as under:-
"(i) In special circumstances when there are no approved names on promotion lists, and vacancies exist, the Commissioner of Police, may promote suitable officers in order of seniority to next higher rank temporarily. Such promotions shall not entitle the officers concerned to claim any right for regular appointment or seniority or for appointment to such or any other equivalent post and shall be liable to reversion without notice as soon as qualified men become available.
(ii) To encourage outstanding sportsmen, marksmen, officers who have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty, the Commissioner of Police may, with prior approval of Administrator, promote such officers to the next higher rank provided vacancies exist. Such promotions shall not exceed 5 per cent of the vacancies likely to fall vacant in the given year in the rank. Such promotions shall be treated as ad hoc and will be regularized when the persons so promoted have successfully completed the training course prescribed like (Lower School Course), if any. For purposes of seniority such promotes shall be placed at the bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year.
(iii) The Commissioner of Police, Delhi for the purpose of posting to the Police Training School and the Recruits Training Centre (DAP IVth Bn. At present) personnel of appropriate merit and talent may grant one rank promotion as in incentive purely on emergent basis up to the level of Inspector without conferring on the promotee, any right of seniority and appointment whatsoever even if he may be borne on promotion list. Such promotes shall revert to their substantive rank as soon as they are transferred out of training institutions and ceased to be an Instructor."
14. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. In Writ Petition No. 8841/2008 titled ASI Devender Kumar Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors., decided on 16.07.2009, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi set aside the order passed by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 1512/2007, whereby the claim of the applicant for grant of third OTP was rejected. The said order of the Tribunal had been challenged by the applicant before the Hon'ble High Court. While Digitally signed by NEETU NEETU SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 SHARMA allowing the writ petition, the Hon'ble High Court, after examining 16:31:18+05'30' 25 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 the relevant rules, policy instructions and factual matrix, made the following observations:-
"12. We are of the view that the decision of the Respondent denying out of turn promotion to the Petitioner on the alleged ground of his having already received two out of turn promotions while granting out of turn promotion to other team members i.e. SI Neeraj Kumar, HC Satish Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar is arbitrary and is not sustainable.
13. It appears that in the past SI Rajiv Kumar, SI Uma Shankar and SI Rakesh Kumar were given third out of turn promotions in the year 2006, 2005 and 1999 respectively. However, Petitioner has been denied third out of turn promotion on the ground that he had already received two out of turn promotions in the past. In spite of the fact that Respondent had granted third out of turn promotion to some of the members of the force in the past, their action in denying third out of turn promotion to the Petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. In the above factual matrix and the legal position applicable to this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken erroneous view in holding that Respondent was justified in declining third ad hoc promotion to the Petitioner in terms of the policy decision taken by the Incentive Committee. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed in OA No. 1512/2007 and direct the Respondents to accord benefit of out of turn promotion to the Petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector on ad hoc basis with effect from the date when three other members of the Kolkatta team namely, SI Neeraj Kumar, HC Satish Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar were granted ad hoc promotions. Petitioner be also given all consequential benefits.
The writ petition is allowed."
15. The contention that OTP is not a matter of right is undoubtedly correct; however, discretion must be exercised in a fair, transparent, and non-discriminatory manner. Discretion cannot be allowed to operate in a manner that rewards subordinates with promotion while denying the same consideration to the officer who led the operation, absent any distinguishing factors.
16. The plea of the respondents that the applicant has NEETU Digitally subsequently been promoted to the rank of Inspector does not cure signed by NEETU SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 26 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 the illegality in the earlier decision, particularly when the applicant seeks recognition from the appropriate date with consequential benefits.
17. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders dated 12.04.2007, 16.02.2012, and 07.11.2016 suffer from arbitrariness and are liable to be set aside.
18. The Original Application is disposed of with the following directions:-
a. The Order dated 12.04.2007 of the Incentive Committee and the consequential orders dated 16.02.2012 and 07.11.2016 qua the applicant are quashed and set aside.
b. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the applicant for awarding out of turn promotion to the applicant for the gallant act performed in the encounter dated 15.10.2004, at par with other team members keeping aside the fact that he has been awarded OTP in the past and if the applicant is found fit, grant him the same with all consequential benefits including notional seniority, pay fixation, and arrears in accordance with law. c. Respondent no. 3 is further directed to ensure that none of the officers who have processed this case of the applicant in the past as Member of Incentive Committee shall be associated with the said Committee while re-considering NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHARMA the case of applicant.
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12 16:31:18+05'30' 27 O.A. No. 1499 of 2018 Item No. 67/Court No. 4 d. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of 08 (eight) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
20. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/neetu/
NEETU Digitally signed by
NEETU SHARMA
SHARMA Date: 2026.02.12
16:31:18+05'30'