Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rohit Choudhary vs Union Of India Through on 15 April, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.249/2009 This the 15th day of April, 2009 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. (MRS.) VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) Rohit Choudhary, IPS, Deputy Director, National Crime Records Bureau, East Block-7, R.K.Puram, New Delhi-110066. Applicant ( By Shri Viraj R. Datar, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Director General of Police, Punjab, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh. 3. Additional Director General of Police, Security, Punjab, Punjab Police Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh. 4. Delhi Police through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, ITO, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri Vivek Goel for Respondents 2 & 3; Shri Aditya Chhibber for Mrs. Jyoti Singh for Respondent 4, Advocates ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The applicant, a senior Indian Police Service (IPS) officer of 1988 batch, first approached the High Court of Delhi and then this Tribunal, it appears, for the limited relief of permitting him to retain the escort vehicle, for which his request was declined vide impugned order dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure A/1). During pendency of the present Original Application, the scope of the case has been enlarged. The issues for determination are now both with regard to security and escort vehicle to be provided to the applicant, as also as to whether this is to be done by the Punjab Government or the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. With a view to determine the controversy as mentioned above, it would be appropriate to refer to the pleadings of the parties.
2. The applicant, an IPS officer of 1988 batch (Punjab cadre) has served there for twenty years on various posts like ASP, SP, SSP and DIG before he was promoted as Inspector General of Police. He is presently serving as Deputy Director, National Crime Records Bureau on deputation since 27.3.2008 for a period of five years vide orders issued in that behalf dated 18.1.2008. It is the case of the applicant that during his tenure with the Punjab Police, he was actively involved in combating terrorism in the late 1980s and 1990s. In the year 2002 he headed the special investigation team to counter the terrorist threats of groups like LeT and others. He is recipient of Presidents police medal and police medal for gallantry. In 2005, in order to rationalize the deployment of manpower, Punjab Police vide letter dated 26.12.2005 circulated to all officers and units, issued norms for entitlement of vehicle and manpower, for both retired and serving officers. These norms were decided by the Director General of Police (DGP) for strict compliance. The applicant, as per threat perception, has been categorized as category A (high threat). The norms of providing security to serving category A officers in the rank of IG/DIG are that they be provided one residence guard and six PSOs with one escort vehicle. Even retired officers in category A are entitled to one guard, if demanded, four PSOs with one escort vehicle. Copy of the policy dated 26.12.2005 providing norms with regard to PSOs and escort vehicle, has been annexed with the Application as Annexure A/2. It is further the case of the applicant that a committee was formed on the directions of the DGP, Punjab, 2nd respondent herein, comprising IGP Intelligence, IGP Headquarters and SP Security to categorize individual officers into category A and category B on the basis of threat perception. The applicant, as mentioned above, was kept in category A on the recommendations of the committee. He was, thus provided security in accordance with order/circular dated 26.12.2005. It is averred that the applicant was put in category A as there were attempts on his life by terrorists. As per case set up by the applicant, personal security officers (PSOs) are provided to officers of category A at any place where the concerned officer has been posted. The order dated 26.12.2005 also provides that officers of category A would be provided security even after retirement. It is the case of the applicant that the National Crime Records Bureau has provided no security to him, and he has been told that he cannot be provided any escort vehicle or PSOs as there are no such security personnel at the disposal of Director, of the Bureau. The said Bureau, however, vide letter dated 8.4.2008 forwarded the application of the applicant to the 2nd respondent for consideration of extending security to him while he is posted at Delhi. The applicant also sent a letter dated 16.5.2008 to the 2nd respondent requesting for security as per order/circular dated 26.12.2005. The 2nd respondent rejected the request of the applicant vide letter dated 10.6.2008, which reads as follows:
Subject: Return of escort vehicle.
Please refer to your letter No. 1-3/Spl. Dated 28.04.08 on the subject cited above.
Your request for retaining the escort vehicle No. PB-12E-3942 (Gypsy) has been declined by the W/DGP Punjab.
It is, therefore, requested that Gypsy No. PB-12E-3942 may please be returned to this office. The applicant made a fresh request on 11.6.2008 for reconsideration of his security. It is his case that even though, the said letter was sent to the 2nd respondent by fax with copy to the ADGP, Security, Punjab, the 3rd respondent, but till date no action has been taken thereon, and on the contrary, the security branch, on instructions of the 3rd respondent, was being sent time and again to harass the family of the applicant at Chandigarh and to re-possess the escort vehicle. Constrained under the circumstances, as mentioned above, the applicant filed WP (C) No.4539/2008 before the Honble High Court of Delhi, praying therein to direct the respondents to provide security to him as per policy dated 26.12.2005. The matter came up before the High Court on 18.6.2008, when following order was passed:
Notice.
Shri Baldev Malik accepts notice on behalf of UOI.
Ld counsel for petitioner seeks permission to serve respondent no.2 and 3 through Resident Commissioner of Punjab in Delhi. Allowed. Be served for 21st of July 2008.
Ld counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner is enjoying security cover in Delhi and seeks time to file an affidavit to this effect. Upon filing of the said affidavit, let the security cover of the petitioner be not withdrawn till the next date.
Dasti. The applicant filed the affidavit as per directions. The writ them came up for hearing on 21.7.2008 when the Delhi Police was impleaded as party respondent on the request made by the counsel for the applicant. Interim order dated 18.6.2008 was directed to be continued till next date. The matter then came up again on 19.11.2008, when the following order was passed:
Respondents No.2 and 3 will place an affidavit on record stating the current status of the petitioner, taking into consideration whether any threat perception exists or not, de hors the policy dated 26.12.2005 by virtue of which all officers of a particular rank of the Punjab Police are entitled to security. They will also state on the affidavit whether any security is provided to retired officer(s)/official(s) or to the officer(s), who are transferred on deputation to another State.
Petitioner is directed to take steps to serve the standing counsel for the Delhi Police before the next date of hearing.
List on 20.1.2009.
Interim order to continue. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 20.1.2009, the 2nd and 3rd respondents filed additional affidavit. It is the case of the applicant that the affidavit is not as per directions given by the Honble High Court, and that no affidavit was filed to the effect whether any security is provided to retired officers/officials or to the officers who are transferred on deputation to another State. The respondents, however, along with the additional affidavit filed recommendations dated 14.1.2009 of the committee constituted by them as per directions of the High Court. The committee so constituted, after considering the threat perception to the applicant, again recommended to provide security cover to him of six PSOs and a house guard. The respondents, however, rejected the recommendation of the committee, and recommended only two guards to be posted at the residence of the applicant at Chandigarh. Even though, the recommendations of the committee were to provide security to the applicant in the manner as mentioned above, the ADGP, Security, underneath the recommendations of the committee observed/ordered as follows:
In view of annexures IV & VI, I dont agree with findings at para 6 above. The officer can seek security from Delhi Police for self and from Chd UT Police for his family. The writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn vide order dated 20.1.2009, as the High Court was of the view that the relief sought in the writ petition would constitute service matter as defined in the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. The interim directions by the High Court were, however, extended for two weeks, enabling the applicant to approach this Tribunal. Meanwhile, the respondents have been sending petrol bills of the escort vehicle to the applicant. There would be no need to mention various letters sent by the 2nd and 3rd respondents asking the applicant to pay petrol bills of the escort vehicle. Suffice it to mention that the respondents have been sending him the bills and the applicant is returning the same to them. The prayer of the applicant in wake of the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, is to set aside the impugned order dated 10.6.2008 withdrawing the escort vehicle from his security, and to provide him security in terms of policy dated 26.12.2005. The interim relief asked for by him is also to stay the operation of order dated 10.6.2008, which only deals with the escort vehicle.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, a short reply has been filed by the Delhi Police, arrayed as 4th respondent, through Commissioner of Police, Delhi, wherein it has inter alia been pleaded that the applicant has filed the OA against withdrawal of the escort vehicle by the Punjab Police, and that the applicant is on deputation as Deputy Director, NCRB at New Delhi. It is pleaded that neither the State Police, i.e., Punjab Police, has informed about presence of any of their protected person in Delhi, nor the applicant has himself approached Delhi Police for any protection or for reconsideration of his threat perception. The categorized security cover to protected persons, it is further pleaded, is provided by Delhi Police as per instructions contained in Yellow Book issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi only after careful assessment of the threat perception; after a requisition for protection is received by Delhi Police, the same is forwarded to the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the decision as to whether protection is to be provided or not, is taken only after careful assessment of the threat perception by the Police Headquarters and the Ministry. It is then pleaded that unless the applicant applies for protection from the answering respondent and until the assessment of his threat perception is looked into as per instructions contained in the Yellow Book, the answering respondent would not be in a position to provide any protection/security to the applicant.
4. The 2nd and 3rd respondents have filed a short affidavit in the Tribunal. It appears that they are projecting their defence on the basis of additional affidavit filed on their behalf before the High Court. In the short affidavit filed in this Tribunal it is averred that two affidavits have been filed before the Honble High Court of Delhi and the same are already on record, and that the contents of the same may be read as part of the present affidavit. It is then averred that as per order of the Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No.4064/2007 the State Government has formulated a policy dated 14.1.2009 for providing police pilot and escort vehicles. It is stated that the applicant has obtained the interim order of stay dated 3.2.2009 by concealing the basic facts of the case and the same is liable to be vacated. In view of order dated 19.3.2008 of Government of India and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in CWP No.4064/2007, and as per policy dated 14.1.2009, it is stated, the State of Punjab cannot provide the security cover sought for by the applicant. In the additional affidavit filed before the High Court of Delhi, it has been inter alia averred that on the applicant proceeding to Delhi on deputation, the escort vehicle deployed with him was directed to be withdrawn by ADGP, Security, Punjab vide order dated 28.3.2008, and that the order was issued in the light of the fact that an officer on deputation to another State is not entitled for a security vehicle. It is mentioned that the State Government has not provided any security vehicle to any of its officers on deputation outside the State of Punjab, and that on 17.4.2008 it was decided to provide the applicant with four PSOs, but the decision to withdraw the security vehicle was maintained, and further that there were no orders to provide residential guard or escort vehicles. Vide letter dated 22.4.2008, it is then mentioned, the applicant requested to provide him with the security vehicle till July end of 2008; he also met the DGP, Punjab and made a request for providing him with six PSOs instead of four, which request was acceded to and he was allowed six PSOs on 25.4.2008. The DGP, however, clearly declined to give a permanent security vehicle to the applicant. Vide letter dated 10.6.2008 the applicant was informed that his request for retaining the escort vehicle had been declined by the DGP, and he was requested to return the vehicle which he had unauthorisedly retained despite clear orders of ADGP, Security. It is pleaded that the applicant did not obey the orders of the DGP withdrawing the escort vehicle and continued with unauthorized retention of the escort vehicle without orders, and that in view of the attitude adopted by the applicant, the DGP informed the Principal Secretary (Home), Punjab about his conduct vide letter dated 25.6.2008 as regards retention of the vehicle unauthorisedly. Vide order dated 18.6.2008, the High Court directed that the security cover of the applicant be not withdrawn. It is pleaded that this direction could, however, not include the security vehicle or the extra manpower as the same was not included in the security cover provided to the applicant, and that the applicant has chosen not to mention these facts and has, therefore, not approached the court with clean hands. Insofar as, the policy dated 26.12.2005 is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that the same is an internal communication issued by the then ADGP/Administration to rationalize the security deployment, and that the said policy is silent about deployment of manpower and security vehicles with officers on deputation outside the State of Punjab. In any case, it is pleaded, for taking the government vehicle outside the State of Punjab, permission of the head of administration is required which was not taken by the applicant. The claim of the applicant for personal security of the scale mentioned by him is said to be false. The applicant, it is stated refused to surrender extra manpower and vehicle despite best efforts of the authorities in this regard and has continued to retain the same in sheer defiance of law and official orders, and that order dated 26.12.2005 (appears to be part of policy of even date) withdrawing excess security personnel and vehicles immediately has also not been complied with by the applicant. It is then pleaded that Punjab & Haryana High Court held that security cover cannot be permanent and that security review is a constant process. WP (C) No.4064/2007 is pending in the Punjab & Haryana High Court and the same deals with issues pertaining to security cover being provided to various persons irrespective of threat perception and more as a status symbol. A statement has been made in the writ petition aforesaid that the security provided to the protectees other than in the State of Punjab and UT of Chandigarh would be withdrawn within a time of three months. A list of retired and serving police officers to whom security has been provided has been annexed as Annexure R-D (colly.). In view of the directions dated 23.12.2008 issued by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, it is stated, orders have been issued in majority of cases and are in the process of being issued in rest of the cases with regard to withdrawal of security to the said police officers. It is mentioned that perusal of the list would indicate that security to these persons was provided as per the threat perception judged by the security wing, and not as per the policy dated 26.12.2005. In view of the orders passed by the High Court dated 23.12.2008, security cover provided to the applicant, i.e., six PSOs as well as unauthorized manpower and security vehicle being retained unauthorisedly by him, it is pleaded, needs to be immediately withdrawn. The need for security cover to the applicant was reviewed and threat perception was got assessed by the intelligence wing. Vide report of the committee dated 14.1.2009 received from IGP, Security, Punjab addressed to ADGP, Security, it has been recommended in para 6 of the said committee proceedings that a security cover of six PSOs and house guard is provided in similar cases subject, however, to policy decision of the Government of India on providing security to officers on deputation posted at Delhi. It has further been recommended that in case the family of the applicant moves out of Chandigarh, the house guard should be discontinued. The ADGP, Security has, however, not agreed with the findings as contained in para 6 of the report in the light of Annexures IV and VI appended with the said report. Annexure IV gives the assessment of threat perception in respect of the applicant. This document would show that the name of the applicant did not figure in any interrogation of terrorists that may reflect threat to his life. Annexure VI deals with the position as regards threat to the applicant, which would show that no IB alert has been received regarding threat to any serving police officials except to Shri K.P.S.Gill, IPS/Ex.DGP, Punjab in respect of whom regular IB alerts are being received. It is in this view of the matter that the ADGP, Security did not agree with the recommendations made in para 6 of the committee proceedings dated 14.1.2009. The DGP agreed with the ADGP, Security except that two PSOs have been directed to be provided to the family of the applicant at Chandigarh. It is then pleaded that in view of the decision of the Government of India as contained in office order dated 19.3.2008, the decision of ADGP and the Honble High Court, State of Punjab cannot provide security cover that is being sought for by the applicant.
5. The applicant has filed rejoinder, wherein by and large, the averments made by him in the OA have been reiterated and the various pleas raised by the respondents in their short reply or additional affidavit before the High Court, have been refuted.
5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case.
6. We have already mentioned that what started as entitlement of the applicant only with regard to escort vehicle, has now been enlarged during the pendency of the OA, to his entitlement not only to the escort vehicle but also his personal security at Delhi and Chandigarh, where his family is stated to be residing. Another dimension that has been added also during the pendency of the case is as to if the applicant has to be provided escort vehicle, personal security at Delhi and Chandigarh, or both, who has to provide the same. It appears to us that insofar as, personal security of the applicant is concerned, the same was never in dispute. It may be recalled that the applicant is admittedly in category A which means that he has a high threat perception. He continues to be in that category. The decision taken in that regard has not been recalled till date. The applicant all through since he came into category A was provided with security as per norms settled in policy dated 26.12.2005. The applicant, even on deputation to Delhi with NCRB, was also provided personal security both at Delhi and Chandigarh. The dispute between the parties on deputation of the applicant to Delhi was only with regard to his entitlement or otherwise for escort vehicle. Various communications and orders passed in that behalf would manifest that at no stage till such time the applicant came to this Tribunal, there was any dispute with regard to entitlement insofar as personal security of the applicant at Delhi and that of his family at Chandigarh is concerned. The applicant approached the court only when order dated 10.6.2008 reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment was passed. The same only pertains to escort vehicle (Gypsy) No. PB-12E-3942. The applicant in his Application has made a prayer for setting aside the said order. His interim prayer is also in that regard. The averments made in the Application would also show his grievance which primarily pertains to withdrawal of the escort vehicle. In the order dated 8.4.2008 addressed to DGP, Punjab by Shri Sudhir Awasthi, IPS, Director, National Crime Records Bureau, it is mentioned that the applicant had submitted an application to the effect that he had fought terrorism in Punjab and as a result he was assigned security threat category A. The applicant had submitted that the threat perception in Delhi remains almost the same as in Punjab as Delhi is very close to Punjab. The request made by the applicant as contained in letter dated 8.4.2008 is for retention of security vehicle as long as he is posted with NCRB at Delhi. In the representation made by the applicant dated 16.5.2008, the prayer is for providing security vehicle for his tenure at NCRB, Delhi. The prayer part of the representation reads as follows:
In view of above, it is requested that I may be provided security with security vehicle for my tenure at NCRB Delhi, where otherwise I would not have any security. Whereas, due to close proximity and links that Delhi has with Punjab, the threat perception remains the same, for the officers who were at the forefront in the fight against terrorism. The specter of revenge terrorism would cast its shadow over such officers for long while for others the terrorism may be over and forgotten. The impugned order Annexure A/1 dated 10.6.2008, as mentioned above, is with regard to withdrawal of the escort vehicle. The representation made by the applicant after rejection of his prayer for retention of the escort vehicle dated 11.6.2008, is once again, with regard to withdrawal of security vehicle. On deputation of the applicant to NCRB, till such time the OA came to be filed, there are no orders that may even remotely suggest that the applicant would be no more in category A or would not require security having no threat perception. Concededly, when the High Court of Delhi passed order dated 19.11.2008 reproduced above, the requirement of the applicant for continuing with personal security and escort vehicle was gone into by a properly constituted committee in that behalf. In paragraph 3 of the report of the committee aforesaid, it is mentioned that as per record, name of the applicant figures as supervisory officer in 14 terrorist related criminal cases, and an attempt was made on his life during the year 1991 in district Ludhiana. The committee noted that his special work in collection of intelligence relating to terrorism is also on record. It is also mentioned that the last terrorist attack on a Punjab police officer took place on 2.9.1992. It is also mentioned that after examining the material on record, the committee was of the considered view that the applicant had worked on anti terrorist front in different parts of Punjab, and he was attacked by militants in 1991 and was awarded two gallantry medals. The committee observed that threat from remnant militant groups of Punjab cannot be ruled out like threat to other police officers who fought against terrorism. It is then mentioned that a security cover of six PSOs and a house guard (one Head Constable and four Constables) is normally given to similarly placed police officers serving in Punjab/Chandigarh offices as the applicant. It is further mentioned that an escort vehicle was also provided which had been since discontinued in compliance of order dated 23.12.2008 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in WP(C) No.4064/2007. It is recommended that security on similar pattern (six PSOs with the applicant and house guard at Chandigarh residence) be provided to the applicant, subject to policy decision on providing security to officers on deputation to Government of India posted at Delhi and family residing at Chandigarh, and that if his family moves out of Chandigarh (and Punjab), the house guard should be discontinued. It is interesting to note that the ADGP, while disagreeing with the findings of the committee in para 6 of its report, wherein it has been concluded that the applicant requires security cover, mentioned that the applicant can seek security from Delhi Police for self and from Chandigarh UT Police for his family. What really transpires from the note/order passed by the ADGP dated 14.1.2009 is that even though, it may appear that he was not agreeing with the report of the committee with regard to threat perception of the applicant based upon Annexures IV and VI, he still observed that the applicant may approach Delhi Police for security of self and Chandigarh Police for security of his family. We are unable to understand if from Annexures IV and VI, the ADGP was satisfied that the applicant had no threat perception, why he mentioned that the applicant may seek security from Delhi Police for self and from Chandigarh Police for his family. The note/order dated 14.1.2009 passed by ADGP is contradictory in terms and cannot be relied upon. In that context, we may mention that the applicant on his deputation to Delhi with NCRB was pro vided with security for self and family at Delhi and Chandigarh respectively, and the dispute was only with regard to providing or not of escort vehicle to him at Delhi. When the applicant proceeded to Delhi on deputation, even though escort vehicle deployed with him may have been directed to be withdrawn, but he was provided with four PSOs. The applicant vide letter dated 22.4.2008 requested to provide him a security vehicle and for six PSOs instead of four. The applicant was allowed six PSOs on 25.4.2008. Thereafter, the respondents have only been asking the applicant to surrender the escort vehicle and extra manpower. The applicant approached the High Court of Delhi in June, 2008 and, as mentioned above, his request was only for retention of escort vehicle. Insofar as, thus the dispute with regard to personal security of the applicant and his family at Chandigarh is concerned, the same could, at the most, be limited. We shall examine the stand taken by the respondents in the reply opposing the prayer of the applicant for his personal security as well on the developments that may have taken place during the pendency of the case, but we may mention at this stage that insofar as, the personal security of the applicant at Delhi and Chandigarh is concerned, the same was not in dispute till such time at least the applicant approached the Honble High Court or the Tribunal. The report of the committee came into being during pendency of the writ petition in the High Court, clearly recommending personal security to the applicant at Delhi and Chandigarh. The recommendations of the committee have, however, been overruled by the ADGP, Security by observing that In view of annexures IV & VI, I dont agree with findings at para 6 above, and yet stating that the applicant may seek security from Delhi Police for self and from Chandigarh UT Police for his family. We have already observed that the note/order of ADGP is self-contradictory. That apart, we are of the view that if a committee had been properly constituted for the purpose of assessing threat perception and recommending or otherwise the security cover of police officers and others, the same cannot be overruled by the ADGP, as otherwise exclusive powers with him to refuse security even after the same is recommended would not only be arbitrary, but discriminatory as well.
7. Personal security of the applicant and his family at Chandigarh has been opposed on the basis of an order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in WP (C) No.4064/2007, and the policy formulated by the respondents dated 14.1.2009. Insofar as, writ petition aforesaid is concerned, the respondents have annexed as Annexure R/E an order dated 23.12.2008. The same appears to be an interim order. Perusal of the order aforesaid would clearly manifest that from the affidavit dated 19.12.2008 of IGP/Security, Punjab, and two files in sealed cover given by him, would reveal names of protectees and police personnel provided to protect such protectees, and brief reasons as to why security is being provided. The Court observed that the list would show that many protectees are not living either in Chandigarh or in State of Punjab. Counsel representing the State made a statement that the security provided to the protectees other than in State of Punjab and Chandigarh would be withdrawn within a period of three months and the States where such protectees are residing would be requested to provide security on sharing the threat perception with such States. On the statement of the counsel, as mentioned above, the Bench observed that such process should also be undertaken by States of Haryana and UT of Chandigarh. The Bench also observed that the list produced would show that total number of protectees in the State of Punjab are 2197 involving 8261 security personnel, and the protectees include industrialists, private individuals, student union leaders, members of SGPC and members of media. It is also observed that providing of security cover to these protectees is more of a status symbol and as a class without examining the real threat perception, and that prima facie, the list includes many protectees who may not be entitled to security on account of change of threat perception or otherwise. The observations/directions that then came to be made read, thus:
Therefore, we direct the State of Punjab to re-assess the threat perception and downgrade security cover keeping in view the threat perception. The State Government while undertaking the exercise to review the security cover shall examine in particular the cases of the above categories. It shall review the cases irrespective of the orders passed by this Court or any other Court subordinate to this Court earlier. The exercise be completed within three months and the status report be filed before this Court. Similarly, the State of Haryana and Chandigarh Administration shall also undertake review of threat perception to each of the protectees within their respective States and file status report.
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram has also argued that the pilot and escort provided to the protectees is a traffic hazard and create problems for the general public. Such vehicles overtake without considering the speed limit. The sudden blowing of sirens and hooters disturb the travelling public. It is contended that the pilot and escort is provided more as a status symbol rather than as a measure of security. Prima facie, we agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Our constitution provides equal rights and status to all its citizens. The feudal mindset and the right of way do not synchronize with the expectations of the people of this country. Therefore, we direct the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh not to provide pilot and escort to any person except to the heads of three wings of the government that is the Honble Chief Minister of States, Honble the Speaker and Honble Chief Justice of High Court.
These directions shall be operative till such time the States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Chandigarh frame a suitable policy in respect of use of pilot and escort vehicle. Till such time, new policies are framed and produced before the Court and the arrangements mentioned above shall be implemented. It is quite clear that the matter before the Punjab & Haryana High Court on 23.12.2008 pertained to two pertinent issues. Whereas, one issue was with regard to protectees such as industrialists, private individuals, student union leaders, members of SGPC and members of media, and the number of personnel deployed with them for their security, the other was for pilot and escort. The order does not specifically deal with police officers or others in service, or for that matter, politicians who may have a threat perception. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 as well, it is mentioned that the Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State of Punjab made a statement in Court, as recorded vide order dated 23.12.2008, that the security provided to the protectees other than in the State of Punjab and Chandigarh would be withdrawn within a time of three months. It is then pleaded that in view of the order dated 23.12.2008 passed by the High Court, orders have been issued in majority of cases and are in process of being issued in rest of cases, to withdraw the security provided to the said police officers. It is further pleaded that in view of order dated 23.12.2008, security cover provided to the applicant, i.e., six PSOs as well as unauthorized manpower and the security vehicle being retained by him unauthorisedly need to be immediately withdrawn. The stand of the respondents does not appear to be correct. As mentioned above, the order dated 23.12.2008 primarily deals with protectees such as industrialists, private individuals, student union leaders, members of SGPC and members of media, as also use of pilot and escort vehicle. It does not deal with police officers or others in service and politicians having threat perception. A list of protectees at Delhi has been annexed with the reply as Annexure R/F colly. Whereas, it may be true that security has been ordered to be withdrawn with regard to protectees such as Member, SGPC and other private individuals, with regard to some other protectees, request has been made to Delhi Police for providing security to them. There is mention of police officers at serial numbers 27 to 35 of the list Annexure R/F. It is true that but for Shri K.P.S. Gill, IPS (Retd.), for whom a request has been made to Delhi Police for providing security, security of others has been ordered to be withdrawn or is being withdrawn. The name of the applicant does not find mention in the said list. There is no material as well to show that the police officers for whom security has been withdrawn had any threat perception. It is not even the case of the respondents in the reply filed on their behalf that police officers with regard to whom security has been withdrawn were such who were in specified category for which policy for providing protection has been framed, and that they had the threat perception, and despite that their security has been withdrawn. Counsel for the applicant has urged that despite directions given to the respondents by the High Court vide interim order dated 19.11.2008 that the respondents would file an affidavit whether any security is provided to retired officer(s)/official(s) or to officer(s) who are transferred on deputation to other States, the respondents have chosen not to divulge this information, as in the affidavit filed by them there is not a word that security to retired or serving officers on deputation has been provided or not. In the list of protectees at Delhi, as mentioned above, from serial numbers 27 to 35 are the police officers, but from the list aforesaid it cannot be made out as to whether they are serving or retired, but for Shri K. P. S. Gill, who, it is known, has already retired. There is no mention in the list with regard to other officers who may have been deputed to places other than Delhi. As mentioned above, even with regard to officers at Delhi, it is not known whether they are retired or serving on deputation. Orders passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court are also not that irrespective of threat perception to the police officers in specified category, security should be withdrawn if such persons are not located in Punjab. Insofar as, policy dated 14.1.2009 relied upon by the respondents, annexed with their reply as Annexure R-2 is concerned, it would be clear from reading of the same that it was with regard to providing police pilot and escort vehicles. The very subject of the policy aforesaid reads, Policy for providing police pilot and escort vehicles. Reference in the policy decision is to an order dated 25.12.2008. If there be any order dated 25.12.2008, the same has not been either referred to or placed on records. It may be a clerical mistake and the reference may be only to order dated 23.12.2008. With regard to providing police pilot and escort vehicles, it is mentioned that police security vehicles are to be provided to a dignitary/threatened person by the DGP, Punjab/ADGP, Security, Punjab either on the basis of position being enjoyed by such dignitary or on the basis of threat perception reports to be obtained from ADGP/Intelligence and SSP concerned. It is also mentioned that some VIPs by virtue of positions held by them at present or in the past would need to be provided security vehicles as they may be under threat. With regard to visiting dignitaries, it is mentioned that dignitaries who are covered under the Blue Book instructions for VVIP security and/or who enjoy SPG protection, would be given pilot and escort vehicles as per requirement of the Blue Book and as per prevailing situation, on their visit to Punjab. After referring to the dignitaries who are to be provided pilot and escort vehicles like the Governor, Chief Minister, Chief Justice of India, Judges of Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court, there is a list of dignitaries who have been provided pilot vehicle while on tour. There is also a list of persons who have to be provided escort vehicle with scaled manpower. The last clause is with regard to provision of vehicles as per threat perception. From reading of the policy aforesaid, we do not find any blanket direction to withdraw pilot and escort vehicles from all concerned. Some dignitaries, it is mentioned, would be provided pilot and escort vehicles, whereas with regard to others, it is based upon the threat perception. Be that as it may, the policy does not at all deal with providing personal security. It deals only with providing of pilot and escort vehicles. Reliance upon this policy by the respondents, insofar as providing personal security to the applicant at Delhi and Chandigarh is concerned, is totally misplaced. The opposition to the prayer of the applicant with regard to his personal security, in the facts and circumstances as mentioned above, is wholly unjustified. The applicant continues to be in category A. He was all through so categorized and has been provided with full personal security as also escort vehicle. Even on his deputation to Delhi, he was allowed personal security both at Delhi and Chandigarh. The objection of the respondents was only with regard to retention by the applicant of escort vehicle. On a fresh assessment with regard to threat perception to the applicant by duly constituted committee, the recommendation is to at least provide him personal security at Delhi and Chandigarh. We are of the firm view that the applicant deserves and is entitled to be provided at least personal security at Delhi and Chandigarh in tune with the recommendations made by the duly constituted committee in its report dated 14.1.2009. Insofar as, escort vehicle is concerned, we may mention that the learned counsel representing the applicant, in all fairness, when confronted with the policy dated 14.1.2009 that came to be issued pursuant to directions of the Punjab & Haryana High Court vide order dated 23.12.2008, did not seriously pressed the said claim. We may, however, mention that providing pilot and escort vehicles to all dignitaries or those who may have some threat perception may result into traffic chaos and untold hardship to the public at large in Delhi. We do not have full information based on any data, but we still know that in Delhi pilot and escort vehicles have been provided to very limited number of dignitaries, like the President, the Prime Minister, the Speaker and some others who may have very very high threat perception and be in Z category. As far as we know, even the Chief Justice, Judges, Ministers and other dignitaries may not have been provided with pilot and escort vehicles in Delhi. We need not stretch this judgment on this issue any further for the reason that the learned counsel representing the applicant, as mentioned above, did not seriously press for retention of the escort vehicle by the applicant.
8. Insofar as, whether it is the Government of Punjab or the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, who has to provide security to the applicant is concerned, it may not be of any concern to the applicant. He has no special charm in getting personal security only from the Punjab Government at Delhi. It may be true that as per the Yellow Book of Delhi Police, there may be some norms for providing security. We need not go into details as to who may provide personal security to the applicant at Delhi. We conclude the matter by simply observing that the Punjab Government may send a request to the Commissioner, Delhi Police for providing security to the applicant, and ultimately, the personal security may be provided to the applicant by Delhi Police, if the rules may so enjoin. However, till such time, Delhi Police may provide personal security to the applicant at Delhi only, the Punjab Police shall continue to do so even though, within norms prescribed by it and not with any extra manpower. Insofar as, the escort vehicle is concerned, the applicant must surrender it immediately to the Punjab Government. Insofar as, petrol bills for the vehicle are concerned, since the applicant enjoyed protection by interim directions, first from the Delhi High Court and then from this Tribunal, it would be in the interest of justice that till date whatever be the legally permissible petrol bills, the Punjab Government shall pay, but if the applicant may still retain the vehicle with him even for a day, the bill shall be paid by him.
10. Before we may part with this order, we may mention that while opposing the cause of the applicant, the respondents have also referred to decision of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India contained in office order dated 19.3.2008. What are the contents of the said decision has not been mentioned in the affidavit. The same has also not been annexed with the reply and no arguments thereon have been raised by the learned counsel representing the respondents during the course of arguments. In these circumstances, it would be an exercise in futility to search for the said decision or to direct the respondents to place it on records.
11. With the observations and directions as mentioned above, this Application is partly allowed. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( V. K. Bali ) Member (A) Chairman /as/