Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dipender Singh (1639/W) vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 15 October, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI OA No. 456/2008 New Delhi, this the 15th day of October, 2008 HONBLE MR. L.K. JOSHI, VICE CHAIRMAN (A) HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J) Dipender Singh (1639/W) PIS No.28930243 S/o Shri Satbir Singh Quarter No.235, Police Line, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. .Applicant By Advocate: Shri Syam Babu. Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Commissioner of Police - Delhi, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Joint Commissioner of Police (Hq.), Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. ..Respondents By Advocate: Shri Ram Kanwar. O R D E R
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged order dated 1.8.2007 and 23.10.2007 (page 18 and 19) whereby his request for grant of out turn promotion has been rejected.
2. It is stated by the applicant that he joined Delhi Police as a Constable in 1993. A circular was issued on 30.7.2002 regarding out of turn promotion which reads as under:-
Out of turn promotion will be given to Constable/Head Constables who physically apprehends 75 PO (25 POs at least involved in heinous crimes) in a single year.
3. Applicant has meritorious record and had shown exemplary courage and devotion to duty. He was granted several rewards for his good performance. Applicant was assigned the duties of arresting POs which was successfully performed by him. He collected information from various Police Stations, record room and developed liaison with Court Ahalamad at various courts in Delhi and outside Delhi. Thus, the applicant had shown high alertness and exceptional devotion to duty and ran hither and thither to gather information regarding whereabouts of the POs. In some cases the POs were living out of Delhi and in such cases the applicant had gathered information regarding sureties from the concerned court and was highly successful in nabbing the POs.
4. In all applicant arrested 50 Proclaimed Offenders (hereinafter referred to as POs) w.e.f. 11.5.2006 as Constable. On 31.12.2006 applicant was promoted as Head Constable in regular turn under Rule 12 (1)(a) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980. He continued with his zeal and from 31.12.2006 till 10.5.2007 arrested another 28 POs out of which 25 POs were involved in heinous crime. Thus in one year he had apprehended 78 POs.
5. Accordingly, SHO, Paschim Vihar recommended his name for out of turn promotion on 16.5.2007. However, his case was rejected on 1.8.2007 on the ground that as Head Constable he had arrested only 28POs. Being aggrieved, applicant gave representation to the Commissioner of Police but vide letter dated 23.10.2007 applicant was informed he has been suitably rewarded for arresting 78 POs within 1 year but his request for out of turn promotion cannot be acceded to.
6. It is in these circumstances that present OA has been filed by the applicant seeking a declaration that he is entitled to be promoted as ASI (Executive) in Delhi Police with effect from May, 2007 when he fulfilled the criteria of arresting more than 75 POs (25 involved in heinous crime) in single year with all consequential benefits.
7. Respondents have opposed this OA on the ground that since the applicant arrested 50 POs when he was holding the rank of constable and arrested only 28 POs while performing duties as Head Constable, he cannot seek out of turn promotion to the rank of ASI by including 50 POs, which he had arrested as constable. However, it was decided by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi that HC Dipender (the applicant) may be recommended by his supervisory officer for a Commendation Roll with cash reward. Accordingly DCP/West District was informed vide U.O. No.5128-29/CB-IV/PHQ dated 29.1.2008 for necessary action. Accordingly, on the recommendation of his supervisory authority, HC Dipender Singh, No.1639/W (the applicant) has been granted Commendation Roll with cash reward of Rs.15000 apart from 76 commendation cards with cash reward of Rs.7400/- by DCP for recognition of his work in arresting 78 POs. They have thus prayed that OA may be dismissed.
8. We have heard both the counsel. The facts are not disputed as even respondents admit that from 11.5.2006 to 10.5.2007 applicant had arrested 78 POs out of which 25 were involved in heinous crimes. They have, however, submitted that as per circular dated 30.7.2002 he should have apprehended 75 Pos in one rank only.
9. Since out of turn promotion is governed by circular it would be relevant to quote the same:-
In partial modification of PHQs Circular No.2504 25142/CB-IV dated 3.5.2001 regarding grant of out of turn Promotion on arrest of Proclaimed Offenders by the police personnel.
The scheme for giving Out of Turn Promotion on arrest of proclaimed offenders has been reviewed and it has been decided that Out of Turn Promotions will be restricted to the ranks of Constables and Head Constables only. The norms fixed for avail of out of turn promotion/Ashadharan Karya Purushkar are hereby re-fixed as under:
1. OUT OF TURN PROMOTION Out of turn promotion will be given to Constable/Head Constables who physically apprehends 75 PO (25 POs at least involved in heinous crimes) in a single year.
2. Ashadharan Karya Purushkar 75 Pos (15 POs at least involved in heinous crimes) in two consecutive years.
It has also been decided that only one such opportunity for out of Turn Promotion would be available for Constables and Head Constables on making arrest of Proclaimed Offenders throughout their career.
10. In the opening para it is clarified that out of turn promotions are restricted to the ranks of Constable and Head Constable only, therefore, Constable/Head Constable as referred to in para 1 of norms only shows the category to whom out of turn promotion can be given. The actual norm fixed is, that a person should apprehend 75 Pos in a single year out of which 25 Pos should be involved in a heinous crime. It nowhere states that this must be done in one rank only. This circular has been issued to fix the norm in furtherance of Rule 19 (ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, which stipulates as follows:-
19(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 regularised 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.
It is thus clear that out of turn promotion is granted in Delhi Police as an incentive for showing exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty. The rule only made a provision for granting out of turn promotion but how to assess devotion to duty was further clarified by the circular dated 30.7.2002. It is in this context that circular has to be read and interpreted. The only norm was that in a single year a person should have apprehended 75 POs out of which 25 should be involved in heinous crimes.
11. In the instant case applicant started apprehending PO w.e.f. 11.5.2006 when he was working as a Constable. It is just a matter of chance that applicant got his promotion as Head Constable in normal routine as per his merit in December, 2006 but he still continued to apprehend the Pos. Admittedly from 11.5.2006 to 10.5.2007 applicant had apprehended 78 POs out of which 25 POs were involved in heinous crime. Thus the norm that a person should have apprehended 75 POs in a single year have been fulfilled by the applicant. In these circumstances, it would not be proper to deny him out of turn promotion, on the ground that it was not done in one rank. If respondents wanted they should have clarified it in the circular that this norm would be valid only in one rank. Since there is no clear distinction on this point in the circular, benefit must go to the applicant.
12. Even otherwise whenever beneficial legislation is introduced, it should be interpreted leniently to the advantage of employees. In taking this view, we are supported by following judgments of Honble Supreme Court:-
(i) Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 3378.
(ii) Rajanna vs. Union of India reported in 1995 Supp. 2 SCC 601.
13. In the case of Madan Singh Shekhawat vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1999 SC 3378, Honble Supreme Court has observed as follows:-
It is the duty of the Court to interpret a provision, especially a beneficial provision, liberally so as to give it a wider meaning rather than a restrictive meaning which would negate the very object of the Rule.
14. Similarly in Rajanna vs. Union of India reported in 1995 Supp. 2 SCC 601, the petitioner therein was Security Assistant in SPG. He met with an accident while travelling in official car from his residence for going to the place of duty. He had claimed ex-gratia payment under Cabinet Secretariat circular dated 13.6.1986, which was rejected by the Tribunal on the ground that injuries had not been sustained while performing actual VIP security duty. Matter was carried to Honble Supreme Court. Their Lordships while allowing the appeal observed as follows:-
On the facts of the case, it cannot be doubted that there would be notional extension of the actual duty to include the journey of this kind in the official SPG vehicle between the staff quarters and the place of duty. The meaning of the expression actual VIP security duty in the above circular must be the same as that of the words in the course of the employment in the Workmens Compensation Act; and, therefore, the test for determining the liability for payment under the circular should also be the same. The tribunal was in error in making an unduly strict and narrow construction of the expression used in the circular. In the said case also contention raised by Union of India was that actual VIP security duty means the actual period when the person is providing security to the VIP on commencement of the duty hours and it does not include the journey to and from the duty post. However, Honble Supreme Court observed that acceptance of the defence taken would frustrate the very object of the scheme in the circular.
15. If the facts of the present case are seen in the backdrop of above observations, we find here also the circular dated 30.7.2002 was issued to give incentive to the subordinate police personnel that if they work hard and achieve the targetted goal in a single year, they would be rewarded with out of turn promotion, therefore, if applicant has achieved the goal of apprehending more than 75 POs in a single year, he must get the reward of out of turn promotion. Since he has already been promoted as Head Constable in normal course as per his merit, he must be considered for out of turn promotion as ASI otherwise not only it would derail his enthusiasm and zeal but dampen his spirit also. Moreover the object of circular would be defeated.
16. Issuance of commendation card and cash reward are independent and cannot be compared with out of turn promotion. If applicant has done good work, he must be commended and rewarded appropriately. This would only further encourage him to do still better in his career.
17. In view of above discussion, orders dated 2.8.2007 and 23.10.2007 are quashed and set aside. OA is allowed with direction to the respondents to consider the applicant for out of turn promotion to the rank of ASI in terms of circular dated 30.7.2002 as he had apprehended 78 POs in a single year out of which 25 POs were involved in heinous crime. This exercise shall be completed within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
(MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) (L.K. JOSHI)
MEMBER (J) VICE CHAIRMAN (A)
Rakesh