Madhya Pradesh High Court
Raghvendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 20 June, 2025
Author: Anand Pathak
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke, Anand Pathak
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12430
1 WP-5539-2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
ON THE 20 th OF JUNE, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 5539 of 2019
RAGHVENDRA SINGH
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dharmendra Singh Raghuwanshi - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kk Prajapati - GA appearing on behalf of State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 10.01.2019 passed by respondent no.2, whereby the representation preferred by the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by this Court in W.P. No.187/2009 dated 20.11.2018, has been rejected.
2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present petition are that the petitioner at the relevant point of time was holding the post of Head Constable. One notified gang of dacoits, namely, Jag Jeevan and Paramjeet were involved in dacoit activities and had their terror in 4 States, for which a reward of Rs.9 lakhs was declared by all the four States. On a secret information received regarding presence of the said notified gang in the house of Heera Singh Parihar at Village Gari Bhudhara a police party was dispatched of which the present petitioner was also a part. When the dacoits noticed the presence of police party, they opened fired causing death of one of the police officer and injuries to others. As per version of the petitioner he along with Reserve Inspector, J.K. Dixit climbed the roof of house of Heera Singh Parihar and after making hole on the roof had fired Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 6/24/2025 1:25:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12430 2 WP-5539-2019 gun shots and after the exchange of firing came to an end, it was found that total 7 dacoits including Jagjeevan and Parmajeet were killed on the spot. It is submitted that as per Police Regulation 70-A, which was in force at the relevant point of time, 35 police personnals were granted out of turn promotion, but the petitioner was denied the benefit, therefore, he preferred a W.P. No.187/2009(S) which was disposed of vide order dated 29.11.2018 with a direction that subject to availability of force under 10% quota as provided under Police Regulation 70-A, the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner for extending the benefit under said Regulation and in case if the respondents are of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for such benefit, then they shall pass detailed speaking order and accordingly, the petitioner was directed to make fresh representation.
3. In pursuance to the aforesaid order representation was made by the petitioner which was considered by the respondent no.2 and vide order dated 10.01.2019, the said representation was rejected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reason which has been accorded for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion is per se illegal and perverse as there was ample material to show that the petitioner had played an active role in the encounter of dreaded dacoits, namely, Jag Jeevan and Paramjeet and also the rejection of the claim of the petitioner is by way of a non-speaking order which is not sustainable in the eyes of law, thus, is required to be quashed.
5. Learned counsel has also argued that though a sum of Rs.30,000/- was awarded as a cash reward for participation of the petitioner in the incident, but he had not accepted the same and had returned the money and awarding of such a Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 6/24/2025 1:25:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12430 3 WP-5539-2019 reward to the petitioner itself goes to show that there was an active participation of the petitioner in the incident which has been ignored, therefore, the order rejecting the representation of the petitioner since is based upon some extraneous grounds, deserves to be set aside and suitable directions are required to be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner/allow his claim for out of turn promotion.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State, Shri K.K. Prajapati, had submitted that there is no material available on record to show active participation of the petitioner in the incident as except for the averments of the petitioner himself that he had climbed upon the roof of the house where the dreaded dacoits were hiding and had fired gun shots from the roof top, there is no supporting evidence that the petitioner had played any role in the encounter of those dacoits. Even in the recommendations made by the respondent no.3/Inspector General of Police, Chambal Range, Gwalior dated 09.05.2007 in all 39 persons have been recommended for out of turn promotion for their active participation in the incident, but the name of the present petitioner is missing therefrom which goes to show that total 39 members of the party had actively participated and as per their role they were recommended for out of turn promotion, but as the name of the petitioner was not recommended, there was no question of giving him out of turn promotion as the non-recommending the name of the petitioner goes to show that there was no participation at all of the petitioner in the incident.
7. Learned counsel has also argued that only being a part of the raiding team would not entail that there was participation of the petitioner in the incident and when the authorities themselves have not found any kind of the involvement of the petitioner in the incident, the claim raised by the petitioner for grant of out of turn Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 6/24/2025 1:25:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12430 4 WP-5539-2019 promotion in parity with the persons who have been granted out of turn promotion, is wholly mis-conceived and baseless, thus, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
8. Heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record.
9. In the present case the encounter with the notified gang of Jagjeevan and Paramjeet took place on 07.07.2007. Regulation 70-A of Police Regulations was in force at the relevant point of time, however, the same has been omitted in the year, 2012. Regulation 70-A of Police Regulations reads as under:-
"70A. Notwithstanding anything contained in Regulation 70, a Constable may be promoted to the rank of Head Constable by the Superintendent of Police with the prior approval of the Director General of Police and a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector by the Deputy Inspector General of Police with the Prior; approval of the Director General of Police if he has distinguished himself in antidacoity operations, law and order situations or shooting competitions or in some other field of duty or who has been awarded the President''s Police Medal for Gallantry or for meritorious/distinguished services, if he considers him suitable for promotion. Similarly the Inspector General of Police may promote an Assistant Sub-Inspector to the rank of Sub-Inspector and a Sub-Inspector to the rank of an Inspector on similar grounds it found suitable for promotion and subject to the prior approval of the Director General of Police. The number of Officers promoted under this Regulation shall not exceed 10 per cent."
10. The participation of the petitioner in the encounter has been disputed by the respondents. In the Magisterial enquiry, statements of the persons who had led the raiding parties have been recorded and in the statements of the Superintendent of Police, Morena, Hari Singh Yadav recorded as witness no.33, had specifically stated that the officers who had actively participated in the incident have been named separately by the persons who has lead the raiding party and as the petitioner was in the party headed by one J.K. Dixit Reserve Inspector (Evident Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 6/24/2025 1:25:09 PM NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:12430 5 WP-5539-2019 from entry made in the rojnamcha Annexure P/3) who has been examined as witness no.34, in his statement had not named the present petitioner regarding his active engagement in the incident.
11. When the aforesaid fact of the active participation of the petitioner in the incident except for his presence could not be established by the petitioner by way of any cogent material, this Court finds that the case of the petitioner is not at parity with the other persons who have been granted out of turn promotion as per Regulation 70-A of the Police Regulations.
12. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that no perversity and illegality has been committed by the respondent no.2 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner.
13. The petition being sans merit is hereby dismissed.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE Chandni Signature Not Verified Signed by: CHANDNI NARWARIYA Signing time: 6/24/2025 1:25:09 PM