Supreme Court of India
Anand Prakash Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1998)8SCC646, AIRONLINE 1996 SC 893
Bench: N.P. Singh, S.C. Sen
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. It appears that on 28-2-1991, 7 criminals were killed in an encounter with the police force. The appellant was also a member of the police force and because of the role played by him, the Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur made a recommendation for award of bravery medal to the appellant by his memo dated 16-5-1991. The said recommendation went to the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur, but remained pending there for about 8 months. Thereafter for 7 months it remained pending in the Office of the Director General of Police, Bihar.
3. When the medal was not awarded to the appellant, a writ petition was filed on behalf of the appellant before the High Court. Respondent 7, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur filed a counter-affidavit which has been referred to by the High Court as follows:
"A counter-affidavit has been filed in which Respondent 7 has taken great pains to explain that the delay was not deliberate and was for reasons beyond his control. We do not wish to make any comment in respect of those explanations but it is apparent that the entire matter was delayed for no fault on the part of the petitioner and now the petitioner is being told that his case is not fit to be recommended for consideration for the award of the medal as it has become stale."
Thereafter the High Court observed:
"However we sympathise with the petitioner, we find ourselves unable to give any relief to him as we are of the opinion that this is a matter which is beyond our writ jurisdiction and does not warrant any interference by a writ court. We, therefore, Find ourselves unable to give any relief to the petitioner in this case."
Towards the end, the High Court said:
"However, in case the authorities feel that there is any scope for making a recommendation in favour of the petitioner, we are sure his case would also be considered sympathetically."
4. As the writ petition was dismissed with the aforesaid findings and observations, this appeal has been filed against that order. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Union of India before this Court. In paras 9, 10 and 11 it has been stated:
"9. That according to the instructions issued by this Ministry, recommendations for the award of gallantry medals are required to be sent to this Ministry by the State Governments/CPOs concerned immediately after the performance of the gallant action by the officer. These recommendations are required to be sent to this Ministry within one year of the cause of action. However, in cases where the prescribed time-limit is exceeded and there is inordinate delay in forwarding the recommendations but at the same time the recommending authority feels that strong reasons for belated consideration exist, they can make a belated proposal duly explaining the reasons for delay,
10. That there have been cases in the past where recommendations for award of gallantry medals were made by the State Governments/CPOs after the expiry of the prescribed period of one year and such proposals were considered in the Central Government and the recommended awarded gallantry medals on the basis of these belated recommendations.
11. That the special dispensation for recommending cases for gallantry medals after the expiry of the stipulated period of one year is provided to ensure that cases which are otherwise really deserving do not go unrecognised merely for this embargo. However, such a special dispensation ipso facto does not confer any right on any individual. The authorities concerned while making such recommendations have initially to fully satisfy themselves taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances. It is not open to an individual to sit in judgment over the decision of the recommending authority in this regard."
5. Dr. Ghosh, appearing on behalf of Respondent 7, took a new stand before this Court which was not taken before the High Court. According to him, if recommendation for awarding medal had been made in respect of the appellant, the same recommendation should have been made by the then Superintendent of Police for other members of the police force who participated in the encounter. We are not able to appreciate this stand. Before the High Court the recommendation was never questioned. The only plea taken was that as several months have intervened since the date of the making of the recommendation, the matter had become stale. As the delay admittedly has been caused because of the recommendation remaining pending for 8 months in the Office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur and 7 months in the office of the Director General of Police, Bihar, the appellant should not suffer because of that. A very fair stand has been taken on behalf of the Union of India. Accordingly we allow this appeal and direct that the recommendation made in favour of the appellant be processed in accordance with law and be forwarded to the Union of India as early as possible.