Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Hc Randhir Singh vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi, Commissioner Of ... on 5 March, 2008
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Randhir Singh, Head Constable in Delhi Police, applicant herein, through present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeks setting aside of order dated 29.12.2006 vide which his representation for out of turn promotion was rejected and in consequence of setting aside of order aforesaid, the applicant seeks out of turn promotion to the next higher rank.
2. Facts of the case reveal that the applicant joined Delhi Police as Constable (Exe.) in 1982 and was promoted as Head Constable (Exe.) in 1992. It is the case of the applicant that in 1996 he and one Satbir Singh, then Constable, arrested two criminals namely Vinod Kumar and Krishan Kumar @ Tonny on 11.05.1996 along with a loaded country made pistol by risking their lives. The applicant caught hold of the criminals due to which, several serious cases, including that of murders, robbery, were solved. Even earlier the applicant had been successful by placing his life in danger, in arresting several dreaded criminals for which he was awarded also. On 11.02.1998, respondents promoted similarly situated constable Satbir Singh to the rank of Head Constable. The applicant represented against the inaction of the respondents in not considering his case for out of turn promotion along with constable Satbir Singh on 20.04.1998. Comments of the ACP (Operations) were called for and, it was specifically observed by the said authority that the applicant deserved out of turn promotion, as he had played the same role as that of constable Satbir Singh. A copy of the recommendation made by ACP (Operations) is placed on record as Annexure A-4. On 17.08.2001, the DCP/North District also verified the role of the applicant in the arrest of the dreaded criminals and opined that the applicant was entitled for out of turn promotion, as constable Satbir Singh, for the gallantry and brave act. On 06.02.2002, the respondents accepted the plea of the applicant that he had played the same role as constable Satbir Singh and granted him an Asadharan Karya Puruskar and rewarded him with Rs. 5,000/- in cash along with a Commendation Roll, however, discriminating him in the matter of out of turn promotion. The applicant once again represented on 13.02.2002 to the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi, being overall Administrator of Delhi Police, with whom vests general superintendence and the power to set aside any injustice caused to any police officer. His representation was, however, rejected vide order dated 29.12.2006. It is the case of the applicant that the Department of Home, GNCT had earlier, in the case of SI Rajbir Singh, whose role was not certified by the DCP as the same as of his colleagues Inspr. L.N. Rao, SI Rajender Singh etc., recommended him for out of turn promotion, many years later, and the said SI Rajbir Singh was promoted as Inspector on out of turn basis. It is the case of the applicant that in his case, two officers ACP (Operations) as well as DCP/North have categorically verified the fact of the role played by him in the arrest of dreaded criminals and have conclusively proved that the role played by him was the same as that of constable Satbir Singh, and have categorically recommended him for out of turn promotion, but the respondents have denied the same to the applicant by violating the principles of natural justice, equality before law, by adopting discriminatory tactics, partiality and pick and choose policy.
3. From the pleadings, as referred to above, the only contention raised by Mr. Bhardwaj, counsel representing the applicant, is that the applicant has been discriminated in the matter of out of turn promotion, inasmuch as, for the same role played by the applicant and constable Satbir Singh, out of turn promotion has been granted to constable Satbir Singh, whereas the same has been denied to him.
4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing counter reply contested the cause of the applicant. It has, inter alia, been pleaded in the counter reply that on 11.05.2006, a team consisting of SI Radhey Lal, ASI Bhim Singh, HC Gopi Ram, HC Randhir Singh (applicant), Const. Satbir Siongh, and Const. Sri Ram, was conducting a drive of checking of buses at Wazirabad, Yamuna Bridge. During checking of DTC Bus Route No. 263, two criminals namely Krishan Kumar @ Tonny s/o Ramesh and Vinod Kumar s/o Sri Krishan got down from the bus and tried to escape. The police team handled the situation very intelligently. Krishan Kumar @ Tonny was nabbed by SI Radhey Lal, HC Gopi Ram and Cosnt. Sri Ram, while Vinod Kumar was nabbed by ASI Bhim Singh, HC Randhir Singh (applicant) and Const. Satbir Singh and one loaded country made pistol was recovered from each of them. Two seprate criminal cases vide FIR Nos. 212 and 213 dated 11.05.1996 under Sections 25/54/59 Arms Act were registered at PS Timar Pur, Delhi. DCP/North District had sent a citation for grant of out of turn promotion to Constable Satbir Singh vide letter dated 14.10.1996. The said citation was considered by the Incentive Committee in its meetings held on 02.02.1998, 05.02.1998 and 09.02.1998 and constable Satbir Singh was granted one rank promotion vide order dated 11.02.1998. In this citation, no reward/award was recommended to other police personnel of the team including the applicant. After this, the applicant made representation and claimed that he had played pivotal role in the arrest of Vinod Kumar and he may be granted out of turn promotion. The case was examined and it was decided to place the same before the Incentive Committee. Accordingly, the case was placed before the Incentive Committee in its meeting held on 09/13.02.2001 and the Committee was of the view that DCP/North District should specifically comment on the role of the applicant in all cases, specific recommendation for out of turn promotion and role of other police personnel. DCP/North District had sent the details of the role played by the applicant in all cases. The details as received from DCP/North District were placed before the Incentive Committee consisting of two Joint Commissioners of Police, one DCP as Member and one Special Commissioner of Police as Chairman in its meeting held on 30.01.2002. The Incentive Committee assessed the role played by the applicant and recommended him for grant of Commendation Roll with cash reward of Rs. 5,000/-. Accordingly he was granted the same vide letter dated 06.02.2002. Aggrieved with the decision aforesaid, the applicant again submitted representation dated 13.02.2002 to the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi, which was also examined as per the instructions issued vide Headquarters' Circular dated 24.04.2000. He was also heard in person by the Joint Commissioner of Police/Hqrs. on 17.04.2002 and explained the position. On the recommendations of the Incentive Committee, he had already been sanctioned a Commendation Roll with cash reward of Rs. 5,000/- by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi for his good work. On receipt of a copy the representation through Government of NCT of Delhi vide lette dated 25.07.2002, brief facts and parawise comments on the points raised in the representation were furnished vide letter dated 26.08.2002. Thereafter, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vide letter dated 22.12.2006 informed that the matter had been examined and rejected by the Lieutenant Governor, Delhi. It is then pleaded that the case of the applicant was examined by the Incentive Committee at length in the light of Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, 1980 [hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1980] and keeping in view the existing instructions on the subject, out of turn promotion cannot be claimed as a matter or right, and that each and every case is decided on its own merits.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder, by and large, reiterating the averments made in the Original Application, to which the respondents have filed a counter affidavit. There would be no need to take into consideration the pleadings made therein as nothing based thereon has been urged during the course of arguments.
6. Before we may proceed any further in the matter, we would like to mention that similar matters bearing OA Nos. 290/2007 and 187/2007 were referred to Full Bench by a Division Bench of this Tribunal vide orders dated 21.02.2007. The question referred to the Full Bench reads as follows:
Whether the particular conduct of a person which according to him is an act of bravery and, therefore, requires an award of out of turn promotion or not, can be judicially reviewed?
When the matter came up for hearing before the Full Bench, on the submissions made by the counsel for the parties, the question was re-framed as follows:
Whether the Tribunal can judicially review, by evaluation of the role of a Police Officer for grant of out of turn promotion, by comparing the same with another officer and, if so, to what extent?
The question aforesaid was answered as follows:
The law being that any State action called in question on the ground of discrimination would be amenable to judicial review, the question framed above has to be answered in positive. Having said so, however, we would hasten to add that the scope of judicial review would be limited only to find out discrimination which may be writ large on the face of it. If in a given case, therefore, by process of reasoning, it may be stated by the respondents that the case of a person for out of turn promotion is not comparable with that of a person demanding such reward of out of turn promotion, it will not be permissible for the court to embark upon and enter into the controversy and to return a finding of its own, unless reasons making out a distinction may be totally perverse or absurd on the very face of it.
In view of the discussions made above, the question is answered in the manner indicated hereinabove.
In the two OAs aforesaid, comparison of the role of the applicants with their colleagues, who were indeed granted out of turn promotion, was considered on the facts of said cases and ultimately it was found that their role, may be in the same event, was nowhere comparable with their colleagues, who were granted out of turn promotion. The OAs, referred to above, were dismissed by a detailed order dated 15.02.2008.
7. Rules of 1980, as would appear from the provisions contained in rule 2 thereof, are applicable to all subordinate ranks of Delhi Police. In view of general principles of promotion contained in rule 5, promotions from one rank to another and from lower grade to the higher grade in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty are the two main factors governing selection. Promotion is to be earned as per provisions contained in Rule 6 in accordance with rules applicable to the cadre unless otherwise provided. The promotion in normal course is to be earned on the basis of selection as per seniority and one has to earn it as per rules. Sub-rule (ii) of Rule 19 of the Rules of 1980 that deals with out of turn promotion, in our view, is an exception to general provisions contained in rules 5 and 6 of the Rules ibid. Rule 19 (ii) dealing with out of turn promotion reads as follows:
(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 exceed 5 per cent of the vacancies likely to fall vacant in the given year not 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 promotees shall be placed at the bottom of the promotion list drawn up for that year.
8. All cases of out of turn promotions when received in PHQ have to be first examined by a committee consisting of Spl.CP/Ops. (Chairman) and three members who would be Jt.CP/Vig., Addl.CP/Traffic and DCP/SO to CP as per order dated 21.09.1999 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The committee is to examine whether the act for which out of turn promotion is recommended involves threat or risk to life of the police personnel concerned, and if the act does not concern any bravery or gallantry, it should be examined whether the achievement in question was a result of efforts put in by the individual which may be termed as beyond the call of duty. Yet another category, which would be entitled for out of turn promotion, is of police officers who may be performing consistently outstandingly for quite some time and deserve encouragement for the extreme hard work, outstanding performance and devotion to duty. The committee has to ensure that under no circumstances a police officer is to be recommended for out of turn promotion in a routine type of work or for a performance, which cannot be categorized as outstanding. The order dated 21.09.1999 reads thus:
Henceforth all cases of out of turn promotions when received in PHQ will be first examined by a Committee consisting of the following:
1. Shri R.S.Gupta, Spl.CP/Ops. : Chairman
2. Shri R.P.Singh, Jt.CP/Vig. : Member
3. Smt. Kanwaljit Deol, Addl.CP/Traffic : Member
4. Shri S.Dash, DCP/SO to CP : Member The Committee will examine whether the act for which out of turn promotion is recommended involves threat or risk to life of a police personnel concerned. If the act does not concern any bravery and gallantry, it should be examined whether the achievement in question was a result of efforts put in by the individual which may be termed as beyond the call of duty. Another category can be of a person who has been performing consistently outstandingly for quite sometime and deserves encouragement for his extreme hard work and outstanding performance and devotion to duty.
The Committee must ensure that under no circumstances should a police personnel be recommended for out of turn promotion in a routine type of work or for a performance which cannot be categorised as outstanding. The Committee will make Minutes of the meting in which such cases are considered. The Committee will come to a conclusion which should be conveyed to me and the minutes be signed by the Chairman as well as Members of the Committee. Thereafter the recommendations will be put up for final approval of the undersigned.
9. While dealing with the question, referred to the Full Bench in OA Nos. 187/2007 and 290/2007, we have already held as follows:
What appears from the scheme of provisions dealing with out of turn promotion is that police personnel who might have shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty or may be outstanding sportsmen and marksmen, would be entitled to out of turn promotion. A committee has been constituted to find out whether the act for which out of turn promotion is recommended involves threat or risk to life of the police personnel concerned, and if the act does not concern any bravery or gallantry, it should be examined whether the achievement in question was a result of efforts put in by the individual which may be termed as beyond the call of duty. There is yet another category to which out of turn promotion can be given and the same comprises police personnel who might have consistently performed outstandingly for quite some time and deserve encouragement for the hard work and outstanding performance and devotion to duty. The category of persons entitled to out of turn promotion has been specified and the committee that has been constituted has been given guidelines as well to determine whether a police personnel comes under the specified categories. The evaluation done by the committee for out of turn promotion would be normally final as it is always for the committee concerned to have in-depth knowledge through its experience to know in what circumstances the act of a police personal may come under the parameters of rule 19(ii) of the Rules of 1980. No one, in our view, can be a judge in his own cause and claim out of turn promotion by proclaiming to be covered under the parameters of rule 19(ii).
10. In the pleadings, the respondents have endeavoured to distinguish the case of the applicant with that of constable Satbir Singh by simply saying that the role played by constable Satbir Singh in the whole incident is nowhere comparable with that of the applicant. It has also been averred that had other members of the team, including the applicant, played identical role during the incident, their names too would have been recommended by the then DCP/North District and they would have got out of turn promotion. During the course of arguments, Mr. Luthra has not been able to distinguish the role played by the applicant with that of constable Satbir Singh, or for that matter, other police officers, who constituted a team leading to arrest of Vinod Kumar and Krishan Kumar @ Tonny. It is, however, strenuously urged by him that the records of the case would make it clear that constable Satbir Singh was given out of turn promotion for his overall distinguished record. By referring to the records of the case and, in particular, citation on the basis of which constable Satbir Singh got out of turn promotion, it is urged that the event in question alone was not the determining factor in granting out of turn promotion to constable Satbir Singh. In fact, it is the entire record that was taken into consideration, and for that reason, the others, who were members of the same party and had played the same role, were not given out of turn promotion. Some of the courageous activities of constable Satbir Singh in the citation leading to grant him out of turn promotion have been described as follows:
In the year 1995, the North distt. had witnesses the recurrence of a wave of burglary and robbery incidents, creating an environment of terror particularly among ladies and old. Constable Satbir Singh was instrumental in developing information about one Krishan Kumar @ Toni and Vinod Kumar, a desperate criminals involved in North Distt. burglary and robbery cases.
Finally on 11.5.96 at about 6.10 P.M. Constable Satbir Singh could locate the culprit Vinod Kumar, who was alighting from the bus. He was chased and apprehended by the Constable. On his search a loaded 'Desi Katta' (Country made pistol) was recovered. Other criminal Krishan Kumar @ Toni could also be arrested due to efforts of Constable Satbir Singh. A case FIR No. 212/213 dated 1.5.96 Under Section 25/27/54/59 Arms Act Police Station Timarpur Delhi was got registered. The following cases could be worked out with their arrest:
Case FIR No. 247/91 dt. 30.9.91 Under Section 457/380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 124/95 dt. 3.4.95 Under Section 457/380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 243/95 dt. 29.6.95 Under Section 380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 303/95 dt. 6.8.95 Under Section 457/380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 409/95 dt. 2.11.95 Under Section 380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 32/96 dt. 20.1.96 Under Section 394/34 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 119/96 dt. 8.3.96 Under Section 379 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 184/96 dt. 18.4.96 Under Section 454/380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 210/96 Under Section 454/380 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
It has then been mentioned that constable Satbir Singh is promising and energetic young police officer, who, in his brief career of about 8 years, has been instrumental in working out many sensational cases, and also apprehended a number of proclaimed offenders during his tenure at different police stations. It is further mentioned that he was an active member of the team, which solved the sensational murder of Raj Kumar of Holy Christ Model School, Kamal Pur, Burari in the year 1991 and murder of one Musafir Rai in the month of June, 1995 near Gandhi Vihar, Timarpur in case FIR No. 224/95 under Sections 302/201 IPC. In that case, a desperate criminal Ganga Ram @ Babu was arrested on 24.07.1995. The criminal fired a round at constable Satbir Singh who had a hair breadth escape. The assailant tried to load another round in his pistol but was immediately overpowered by constable Satbir Singh without caring for his life. During interrogation he also confessed the commission of murder of Raj Kumar of Holy Christ Model School in 1991. With the arrest of accused Ganga Ram @ Babu, following cases had been worked out:
Case FIR No. 307/91 Under Section 302/34 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 244/93 Under Section 392/34 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 263/93 Under Section 392/398/34 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
Case FIR No. 224/95 Under Section 302/201 IPC Police Station Timarpur, Delhi.
On 18.04.1996, a blind gruesome murder of one Teg Bahadur @ Tittu had taken place and case FIR No. 185 dated 19.4.1996 under Sections 302/34 IPC Police Station, Timarpur, Delhi was registered. Constable Satbir Singh, being member of investigation team of that murder case, managed to get some clues about involvement of Rohtash and Girish Babu in the case. Constable Satbir Singh could locate culprit Rohtash and overpowered him. Later co-accused Girish Babu was also arrested on 11.05.1996. It is then mentioned that constable Satbir Singh had also worked out case FIR No. 279/92 dated 19.09.1992 under Sections 302/34 IPC read with Sections 25/27/54/59 Arms Act and 5 TADA Act and was rewarded Rs. 3000/- by Commissioner of Police, Delhi. The said part of the citation reads as follows:
It is evident from the above that the career of constable Satbir Singh No. 2044/North is full of achievements. He has an outstanding record and he has brought laurels to Delhi Police time and again. His work was praised by the press from time to time which is evident from the press clippings attached, thus, he has helped to hold aloft the banner of Delhi Police with fame, name and glory. He is an officer with high integrity.
11. Even though the respondents have not pleaded that constable Satbir Singh was able to get out of turn promotion on the basis of his overall service record but, once the said fact is available on records, the Court has to take that into consideration. It is too well settled that writ runs on records. Even though, therefore, the role played by the applicant in the whole incident may be the same as that of Constable Satbir Singh, it would not be a case of discrimination, inasmuch as Constable Satbir Singh was able to get out of turn promotion on the basis of his over all service records even though the role played by him may be comparable with the role played by the applicant and other members of the team.
12. In view of the observations made above we find no merit in this Application and the same is dismissed, however, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.