Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ct.(Exe.) Ankit Deshwal vs Gnct Of Delhi on 24 March, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NOS.3413, 3417 & 3418 OF 2013 New Delhi, this the 24th day of March, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI ASHOK KUMAR, ADMINISRATIVE MEMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. In OA No.3413 of 2013: Ct.(Exe.) Ankit Deshwal, No.862/SB, PIS No.28092306 Presently located at: Special Cell, Lodhi Colony, Delhi, s/o Sh. IkpalSingh R/o D-1073, Gali No.9, Ashok Nagar, Delhi 110094 Group C aged 27 years Applicant (By Advocate: Sourabh Ahuja) Vs. 1. GNCT of Delhi, Through Lt.Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Shamnath Marg, Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police(Establishment), PHQ, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Cell), Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi . Respondents (By Advocate: Ms.Ritika Chawla) In OA No.3417 of 2013: Ct.(Exe.) Amit Kumar, No.853/SB, PIS No.28040503 Presently located at: Special Cell, Lodhi Colony,Delhi, s/o Sh.Deshraj R/o C-479, Shivaji Gali, Chajjupur, Shahdara, Delhi 110032 Group C aged 28 years Applicant (By Advocate: Sourabh Ahuja) Vs. 1. GNCT of Delhi, Through Lt.Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Shamnath Marg, Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police(Establishment), PHQ, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police(Special Cell), Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi . Respondents (By Advocate: Ms.Rashmi Chopra) .. In OA No.3418 of 2013: HC (Exe) Parvesh Kumar, No.701/SB, PIS No.28990740 Presently located at: Special Cell, Lodhi Colony,Delhi, s/o late Sh.Harpal Singh R/o R-13, 3rd Floor, Naveen Shahdra, Delhi 110032 Group C aged 35 years Applicant (By Advocate: Sourabh Ahuja) Vs. 1. GNCT of Delhi, Through Lt.Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Shamnath Marg, Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 3. Deputy Commissioner of Police(Establishment), PHQ, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi. 4. Deputy Commissioner of Police(Special Cell), Through Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police, Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi . Respondents (By Advocate: Ms.Sangeeta Tomar) .. ORDER Raj Vir Sharma, Member (J):
All these three Original Applications, which involve common questions of fact and law, have been heard together, and we propose to decide the same by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we take O.A.No.3413 of 2013 as the leading case and refer to and consider the pleadings of the parties as well as the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for them therein.
O.A.No.3413/13:
2. In this Original Application, the applicant has prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 6.9.2013(Annexure-1) which reads as under:
R.I.O. with the remarks that in the Recommendation Roll submitted in the arrest of most wanted Super Carjacker Manoj Bakkarwara s/o Narain Singh r/o Vill Bakkarwara, P.O.Mundka, Delhi and his associates, it has been approved by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, that a Citation for Asadharan Karya Puraskar to HC Parvesh Kumar Rathi No.701/SB, Const. Ankit, 862/SB, Const. Amit Kumar, No.853/SB and Const. Hemant Kumar No.793/SB, PIS No.28070031 is being sent separately (copy of this office memo No.31/P.Sec./DCP/SPL Cell, dated 01.02.2012 is enclosed for reference) and accordingly a citation was sent to PHQ and they have been awarded Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- vide PHQs order No.A-6/1/(IV-2/2012/44604-703/CB-IV (Inc.)/PHQ dated 22.07.2013. Const.Ankit, 862/SB may be informed accordingly. The applicant has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to grant him out of turn promotion to the rank of Head Constable (Exe) with effect from 14.6.2012, when his teammates were granted out of turn promotion, with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, difference in salary, etc..
3. Brief facts of the applicants case are that he was appointed as a Constable (Exe) in Delhi Police on 3.4.2009. He played a pivotal role in tracking the movement of desperado Manoj Bakkarwara. He visited many places in Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan and studied the modus operandi of Manoj Bakkarwara to extract clues. He also scanned suspected areas in Aligarh, Rudrapur and Haldwani to get information about the above mentioned criminal. On 16.1.2012 he put his life at risk and immediately pounced upon Manoj Bakkarwara and overpowered him. He succeeded to take out pistol from the dub of Manoj Bakkarwaras pant, and as a result, he ensured the safety of the team members. FIR No.3/2012 (Annexure 2) under Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act read with Section 411 IPC was lodged against Manoj Bakkarwara. According to the applicant, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police(Special Cell) recommended his name along with other team members, i.e., HC Surender,HC Pradeep Kumar, HC Pravesh Kumar, Ct Satya Prakash, CT Amit and Ct Hemant for grant of Out of Turn Promotion to their respective higher ranks. His brave act was identical to Ct Satya Prakash. Some of the team mates of the applicant, namely HC Surender, HC Pradeep Kumar, and Ct Satya Prakash, were granted promotion on out of turn basis to their respective next higher ranks, vide order dated 14.6.2012 (Annexure 3). On his query, the applicant was informed that there were some administrative problems because of which his name was not considered for grant of out of turn promotion, and he was assured that his name for grant of out of turn promotion to the next higher rank would be considered in the next meeting of the Incentive Committee. He was surprised and shocked when he received the order dated 22.7.2013 (Annexure 4) whereby he was granted Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- instead of out of turn promotion to the next higher rank. Hence, the applicant made a representation dated 30.8.2013 (Annexure 6) to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. In the representation, the applicant claimed that his brave act was second to none, and that the brave act displayed by him was mutatis mutandis the brave act displayed by his team mates, who were granted out of turn promotion to their next higher ranks. The granting of Asadharan Karya Puraskar and Rs.10,000/- as cash reward to him was arbitrary and discriminatory. Copy of the citation qua HC Surender, HC Pradeep Kumar and Ct Satya Prakash has been filed by the applicant as Annexure 5 collectively. In the representation, the applicant requested the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to reconsider his case for granting him out of turn promotion instead of Asadharan Karya Puraskar. He also volunteered to refund the cash reward of Rs.10,000/- which was credited to his salary account. In response to his representation, the impugned communication dated 6.9.2013 was issued. It is submitted by the applicant that rejection of his claim for out of turn promotion is in contravention of the law laid down by the Tribunal in HC (Exe) Balwant Singh Rana v. GNCT of Delhi and others, OA No.4070 of 2011, decided on 31.7.2011, and the law laid down by the Honble High Court of Delhi in ASI Devender Kumar v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, W.P.( C ) No. 8841 of 2008, decided on 16.7.2009. It is submitted by the applicant that the action of the respondents in granting out of turn promotion to the identically situated persons and in denying him such out of turn promotion is illegal, discriminatory, and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Cell) was incompetent to consider and decide his representation dated 30.8.2013, and therefore, the impugned order dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure 1) being passed by an incompetent authority is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Incentive Committee has ignored relevant material and relied on extraneous material while granting him only Asadharan Karya Puraskar. The Incentive Committee, without acting independently, proceeded on wrong notion/premise that as the citation in respect of the applicant was sent for Asadharan Karya Puraskar, the applicant was to be considered only for Asadharan Karya Puraskar. The recommendation roll/citation prepared by the concerned Deputy Commissioner of Police is only his prima facie opinion with reference to grant of out of turn promotion, or Asadharan Karya Puraskar, or both. It was the job of the Incentive Committee to apply its mind to the relevant materials, viz., citation, recommendation roll, etc., and give its recommendation. Thereafter, the said recommendation, along with the relevant materials, is placed before the Commissioner of Police who takes a final decision as to whether the officer deserves out of turn promotion, or Asadharan Karya Puraskar, or both, or nothing. It is also submitted by the applicant that as per the circular dated 24.4.2000 out of turn promotion can be given to the police officer who is showing outstanding work continuously. In terms of the said circular, the applicant is entitled for promotion on out of turn basis to the rank of Head Constable (Exe.). In view of the above, the applicant submits that he is entitled to out of turn promotion to the rank of Head Constable (Exe) for his bravery, exceptional gallantry beyond the call of duty and without caring for his life, in terms of Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Promotion (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980.
4. Opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply. It is, inter alia, stated by the respondents that during the operation in question, a Recommendation Roll dated 25.1.2012 was put up by Sh.Arun Kampani, the then Deputy Commissioner of Police(Special Cell), Delhi, to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for the grant of Recommendation Roll with cash reward to police personnel and for approval of citation for out of turn promotion to next higher rank of HC Surender Kumar No.566/SB, HC Pradeep Kumar No.622/SB and Const. Satya Prakash No.819/SB, and citation for Asadharan Karya Puruskar to HC Parvesh Kumar Rathi No.701/SB, Ct.Ankit No.862/SB (applicant herein), Ct.Amit Kumar No.853/SB and Ct Hemant Kumar No.793/SB. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, approved the same on 1.2.2012.Accordingly, a citation for out of turn promotion to next higher rank of HC Surender Kumar No.566/SB, HC Pradeep Kumar No.622/SB and Const.Satya Prakash No.819/SB was sent to the Police Headquarters, and they were promoted to their next higher rank vide PHQs order No.37500-599/CB-IV/PHQ dated 14.6.2012 on the basis of the recommendation of the Incentive Committee and approval thereof by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Similarly, a citation for Asadharan Karya Puruskar (AKP) to the applicant, and HC Parvesh Kumar Rathi No.701/SB, Ct.Amit Kumar No.853/SB and Ct. Hemant Kumar No.793/SB, was sent to PHQ vide note No.37/P.Sec./DCP/Spl.Cell dated 9.2.2012. The citation was considered by the Incentive Committee in its meeting held on 27.6.2013. The Incentive Committee, after evaluation of citation, service records and other relevant materials, recommended their names for the grant of Asadharan Karya Puruskar. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi, approved the minutes of the meeting of the Incentive Committee. Accordingly, they have been granted Asadharan Karya Puruskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- each, vide PHQs order No.A/6/1(V-6) 2012/44604-703/CB-IV (Inc.)/PHQ dated 22.7.2013. The respondents have denied the statement of the applicant that the then Deputy Commissioner of Police had recommended his name, along with other team members, i.e., HC Surender, HC Pradeep Kumar, Ct. Satya Prakash, HC Parvesh Kumar, Ct. Amit, and Ct. Hemant, for the grant of out of turn promotion to the next higher rank. They have asserted that few team mates of the applicant, namely, HC Surender, HC Pradeep Kumar, Ct Satya Prakash were granted out of turn promotion to their respective higher ranks, vide order dated 14.6.2012. The facts mentioned by the applicant in his representation dated 30.8.2013 were wrong. Therefore, his representation was returned to the Assistant Commissioner of Police (Special Cell), SR, vide memo dated 6.9.2013 along with a copy of the office memo dated 1.2.2012 wherein it was recommended that a citation for Asadharan Karya Puraskar to the applicant, HC Parvesh Kumar Rathi, Const. Amit Kumar No.853/SB and Const. Hemant Kumar No.793/SB was sent separately, which was also approved by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. Accordingly, the said citation for the award of Asadharan Karya Puraskar was sent to the Police Headquarters, and they have accordingly been granted Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/-, vide order dated 22.7.2013. As per judicial case file, ASI Dinesh Singh was the one who had taken out the Pistol from the possession of the accused Manoj Bakkarwara. In support of this statement, the respondents have filed a copy of the statement of Inspector Vivek Tyagi as Annexure R/1 to the counter reply. It is also stated by the respondents that the citations for out of turn promotion and Asadharan Karya Puraskar in favour of the respective officers were sent, after evaluating the role played by each of them during the entire operation. The contribution of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct. Satya Prakash in the entire operation was more commendable than the applicant herein during the entire operation. The past records of the above team members were also considered for awarding out of turn promotion. HC Surender Kumar, HC Pradeep Kumar, and Const. Satya Prakash had exhibited more efforts than the applicant and his colleagues and hence their names were recommended for out of turn promotion. The above officers were associated in the operation right from its beginning and put in more efforts in operation than the applicant and his colleagues. The grant of Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10, 000/- was fully commensurate with the work done by them in the entire operation. In the above view of the matter, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the Original Application filed by the applicant.
5. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reply refuting the stand taken by the respondents in the counter reply. While reiterating more or less same averments and contentions as in his O.A., the applicant has, inter alia, stated that his representation dated 30.8.2013 was not put up before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, but was returned by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Police. In the cases of Inspector Umesh Bharthwal, Inspector Neeraj Kumar, Inspector Dharmender Kumar, who made representations for consideration of their out of turn promotion, the Commissioner of Police reviewed and modified his earlier decisions. Therefore, the action of the subordinate authority in returning his representation is illegal, arbitrary and whimsical. In support of his submission, the applicant has placed reliance on Kuldeep Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi and others, OA No.2261 of 2006, decided on 6.5.2008.
6. We have perused the pleadings and have heard Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Ms.Ritika Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
7. Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, reiterated the contentions raised in the O.A. as well as rejoinder. It was vehemently submitted by Shri Ahuja that there being no distinction in the role of the applicant and that of Constable Satya Prakadh, and Head Constables Surender and Pradeep, the respondents ought to have granted him out of turn promotion, and that denial of out of turn promotion to the applicant to the next higher rank is arbitrary and discriminatory. It was also submitted by him that the applicants representation dated 30.8.2013 made to the competent authority, i.e., Commissioner of Police, Delhi, was arbitrarily returned and/or turned down by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Police, and therefore, the impugned communication dated 6.9.2013 is liable to be quashed. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel invited our attention to the decisions of the Tribunal in HC (Exe.) Balwant Singh Ranas case (supra) and Kuldeep Kumars case (supra), and the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in ASI Devender Kumars (supra).
7.1 In HC (Exe.)Balwant Singh Ranas case (supra), the applicant was a Head Constable (Exe.) in Delhi Police. The citation for out of turn promotion of the applicant along with another Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector was placed before the Incentive Committee. The Incentive Committee took the view that the contents of the DD entries and FIR do not contain any details that suggest exemplary courage or an outstanding act shown by the applicant and other Head Constable during the entire operation. The Incentive Committee recommended Asadharan Karya Puraskar for the efforts of the applicant. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Police issued order awarding such Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the applicant. The applicant submitted representation for grant of out of turn promotion instead of Asadharan Karya Puraskar. The Commissioner of Police considered the said representation, but reiterated his earlier decision. Hence, the applicant filed the O.A. praying for quashing the decision of the Commissioner of Police and for a direction to the respondents to promote the applicant on out of turn basis to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector with retrospective effect. The Tribunal held thus:
.The citation needs to be analyzed by the Incentive Committee. The Committee relied upon the DD and FIR to take a view that the performance of the applicant in the incident captioned hereinabove, as recorded in DD and FIR does not call for his out of turn promotion. However, the Committee has not commented upon the contents of the citation i.e. whether the facts narrated in the citation are incorrect/incredible or not reliable or even if correct, the role of the applicant reflected therein is not gallant and exceptional enough for giving him out of turn promotion or there was some extrapolation in the citation. While the contents of the DD and of FIR, and the facts narrated in the citation, may not independently be sufficient to be acted upon, as tested or proved documents, it is for the Incentive Committee to weigh all three of them, and to form its own opinion, while taking a decision. It would be appropriate for the Incentive Committee to make a reference to the contents of the DD/FIR in forming its opinion with simultaneous reference to the contents of the citation also, and to record as to how it has weighed them. The Tribunal observed that as the recommendation did not contain any proposal for out of turn promotion of applicant, but simply indicated that such proposal was sent separately, it could not be viewed that the sanction of the Commissioner of Police on the recommendation roll had the effect of out of turn promotion of the applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Incentive Committee to take a fresh view in the matter.
7.2 In Kuldeep Kumars case (supra), the applicant, working as a Head Constable with Delhi Police, pleaded discriminatory treatment meted out to him in the matter of out of turn promotion. After reproducing the contents of the FIR, the Tribunal observed and held thus:
5. If one is to go by the contents of the FIR, as reproduced above, no distinction in the role of applicant and that of HC Kewal Krishan may be found. It could not be disputed during the course of arguments as well that the role played by the applicant and by HC Kewal Krishan, as made out in the FIR, is the same, but despite that, a distinction is sought to be made in the role played by him and HC Kewal Krishan in the counter reply filed on behalf of the respondents.
6. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. We are of the considered view that the authorities did not apply their mind to the role played by the applicant in comparison to the one played by HC Kewal Krishan, despite a specific plea raised by the applicant that there was no distinction whatsoever in the role played by him and that by HC Kewal Krishan during the operation dated 8.6.2005. Prima facie, there appears to be evidence which may lead to an inference that the role played by the applicant and HC Kewal Krishan was the same. In the facts as mentioned above, this Tribunal is of the view that the matter needs reconsideration by the Commissioner of Police. Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the O.A., quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, to re-determine the case of the applicant for grant of out of turn promotion.
7.3 In ASI Devender Kumars case (supra), the petitioner was appointed as Constable on 15.6.1989. He was granted first out of turn ad hoc promotion as Head Constable on 3.6.2003 and was later on regularized on 22.5.2006. He was granted second out of turn promotion on ad hoc basis on 30.3.2006 as Assistant Sub Inspector. These out of turn promotions were given to him under Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promition & Confirmation) Rules, 1980. Accused Sher Singh Rana, who was involved in the murder of Smt. Phoolan Devi (Member of Parlilament) escaped from Tihar Jail on 17.2.2004 and a reward of Rs.50,000/- was declared on his arrest by the Delhi Police. The petitioner and his teammates made untiring efforts for six months and nabbed accused Sher Singh Rana on 24.5.2006 in Kolkata. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Branch) sent a citation for out of turn promotion to the next higher rank to the petitioner and his four other teammates on 27.6.2006. The Incentive Committee decided not to recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not given out of turn promotion as he had the benefit of out of turn promotions twice in the past. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Original Application. The Tribunal held that ad hoc out of turn promotion depended upon the number of vacancies available in a given year and the number of persons being considered for such promotion, and it may so happen that the number of vacancies in a year are large, and number of recommendations are only few or it may be vice versa. Depending upon these facts, the Incentive Committee can mould the policy to be followed on the basis of situation prevalent in a particular year. Depending upon the circumstances, the Incentive Committee can restrict out of turn promotion to those who have already got up to two such promotions in the past and discrimination cannot be pleaded as long as all the aspirants, in a particular, year are treated equally as per the common criteria. The petitioner was not discriminated as he was declined third out of turn promotion as per the policy made by the Incentive Committee in that particular year. Being dissatisfied with the Tribunals decision, the petitioner approached the Honble High Court of Delhi. The Honble Court, after examining Section 5 of the Delhi Police Act and Rule 19 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, held thus:
11. Rule 19 of the said Rules has statutory force having been framed by the Administrator in exercise of the powers vested in him by virtue of sub-section (1) of Section 147 of the said Act. Accordingly, no circular, guidelines or office memorandum can supplant the substantive rules. No policy can be made contrary to the statutory rules. Accordingly, we are of the view that Respondent could not have denied third out of turn promotion to the petitioner who was similarly placed vis-`-vis his other teammates named SI Neeraj Kumar, HC Satish Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar, being part of the same team which nabbed accused Sher Singh Rana.
12. We are of the view that the decision of the Respondent denying out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the alleged ground of his having already received two out of turn promotions while granting out of turn promotion to other team membes i.e. SI Neeraj Kumar, HC Satish Kumar and Ct. Surender Kumar is arbitrary and is not sustainable.
13. It appears that in the past SI Rajiv Kumar, SI Uma Shankar and SI Rakesh Kumar were given third out of turn promotions in the year 2006, 2005 and 1999 respectively. However, petitioner has been denied third out of turn promotion on the ground that he had already received two out of turn promotions in the past. In spite of the fact that Respondent had granted third out of turn promotion to some of the members of the force in the past, their action in denying third out of turn promotion to the petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
14. In the above factual matrix and legal position applicable to this case, we are of the view that the Tribunal has taken erroneous view in holding that Respondent was justified in declining third ad hoc promotion to the petitioner in terms of the policy decision taken by the Incentive Committee. We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order passed in OA No.1512/2007 and direct the Respondents to accord benefit of out of turn promotion to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector on ad hoc basis with effect from the date when three other members of the Kolkata team namely, SI Neeraj Kumar, HC Satish Kumar and Ct Surender Kumar were granted ad hoc promotions. Petitioner be also given all consequential benefits.
8. On the other hand, Ms.Ritika Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submitted that considering the role of each individual police officer during the entire operation to arrest Manoj Bakarwara, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, approved the grant of recommendation roll with cash reward to the applicant and three others, and recommendation roll for out of turn promotion to HC Surender Kumar, HC Pradeep Kumar, and Constable Satya Prakash. The Incentive Committee, after considering the citation for out of turn promotion and the entire service records of Head Constable Surender, Head Constable Pradeep, and Constable Satya Prakash, recommended their out of turn promotion. Accordingly, they were promoted to the next higher rank, vide order dated 14.6.2012. As regards the applicant and three others, the citation for grant of Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- was recommended and approved, vide Recommendation Roll dated 1.2.2012. The Incentive Committee, in its meeting held on 27.6.2013, after evaluation of the citation and the entire service records of the applicant and others, recommended their names for Asadharan Karya Puruskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- each. The Commissioner of Police approved the said recommendation of the Incentive Committee. Accordingly, the order dated 22.7.2013 was issued awarding Asadharan Karya Puraskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- to the applicant and others. It was also submitted by the learned counsel that there was no discrimination or biasness by the Incentive Committee, and that the applicant cannot claim out of turn promotion as a matter of right. As the applicant made wrong statement in his representation dated 30.8.2013 that citation was issued in his favour for out of turn promotion, his representation was returned. The communication dated 6.9.2013 (Annexure 1), whereby the Assistant Commissioner of Police, TSS, while indicating the correct position of the case of the applicant, returned the applicants representation, was issued only for information of the applicant. The said communication dated 6.9.2013 cannot be said to have contained the decision of any authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Police. The interpretation as made by the applicant that an authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Police has returned and/or rejected his representation dated 30.8.2013 is untenable. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Honble High Court of Delhi in Commissioner of Police and others v. SI Satbir Singh, W.P. ( C ) No.10733 of 2009, decided on 9.8.2010, as well as the decision of the Tribunal in Nasib Singh v. Union of India and others, 2007 INDLAW CAT 19.
8.1 In Commissioner of Police and others v. SI Satbir Singh (supra), the respondent, working as an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, had a grievance that his entitlement to earn out of turn promotion was not validly considered and hence he filed OA No.1746 of 2003 which was allowed with a direction that the respondent was entitled to be considered for an out of turn promotion. Honouring the Tribunals decision dated 2.1.2004, allowing OA No.1746 of 2003, the petitioners granted out of turn promotion to the respondent to the rank of Sub Inspector vide order dated 17.5.2004. The petitioner again filed OA No.625 of 2007 praying that his out of turn promotion had to be with retrospective effect, i.e., the year in which he did exemplary work, i.e., the year 1998. The Tribunal allowed O.A.No.625 of 2007. Allowing the writ petition and quashing the Tribunals order passed in OA No.625 of 2007, the Honble High Court held thus:
5. Firstly, the respondent is not claiming any right to be promoted under the notified Recruitment Rules. Secondly, the out of turn promotion being by way of a special benefit cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Thirdly, nobody can stake a claim to be promoted from a date when somebody has done good work justifying claim to be considered for out of turn promotion. Special incentives can never rank at par with statutory rights. Lastly, the reason that while allowing the previous Original Application filed by the respondent, the Tribunal simply directed that his case for promotion be considered and never directed any consequential benefits to be given to the respondent. 8.2 In Nasib Singhs case (supra), the question that was originally referred to the Full Bench was: 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? However, on the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the Full Bench reframed the question as follows:
Whether this 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? After examining Rules 2, 5 and 19 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980 as well as the instructions contained in the order dated 21.9.1999 issued by the Commissioner of Police, the Full Bench of the Tribunal held thus:
8. 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 deserves 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 guideline 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 personnel 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). Having observed so, if, perhaps the question originally framed by the Division Bench referred to the larger Bench was to be answered, the clear and unequivocal answer would be that normally, there would be no judicial review on the question as to whether conduct of a police personnel culminating into an act of bravery would require award of out of turn promotion. The question, as reframed by it, was answered by the Full Bench as follows:
13. 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.
9. In the above factual matrix and legal position, let us consider the rival contentions of the parties.
10. The main contention of the applicant is that there being no distinction between the role played by him and that of Constable Satya Prakash, and Head Constables Surender and Pradeep during the entire operation leading to the arrest of the dreaded criminal Manoj Bakkarwara, the respondents ought to have considered his case and granted him out of turn promotion to the next higher rank of Head Constable, while considering the cases of the said S/Shri Satya Prakash, Surender and Pradeep and granting them out of promotion to them. According to the applicant, denial of out of turn promotion to him is discriminatory. It is the stand of the respondents that the cases of S/Shri Satya Prakash, Surender and Pradeep are not comparable with that of the applicant inasmuch as the role played by the applicant and that of the said S/Shri Satya Prakash Surender and Pradeep are distinctly different. In support of their respective contentions, the learned counsel for the parties invited our attention to the contents of the FIR lodged by the Shri Dinesh Singh, ASI, after the operation was over, as well as the recommendation rolls/citations which were prepared and placed before the Incentive Committee. Therefore, it would be necessary to quote the relevant portions of the FIR and the recommendation rolls/citations, which were apparently placed before the Incentive Committee for considering the question of grant of out of promotion of the said S/Shri Surender, Pradeep Kumar, and Satya Prakash to their next higher ranks, and the question of grant of Asadharan Karya Puruskar to the applicant and HC (Exe) Parvesh Kumar, Constable (Exe) Amit, and Constable Hemant, as follows:
(i) FIR 16.01.2012 submitted by Shri Dinesh Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, to the Duty Officer, P.S. Special Cell, Delhi.
It is submitted that the team of Special Cell was chasing one three times escapee accused Manoj Bakkarwara for two months, who was involved/wanted in many incidents of Delhi and other states. A reward of Rs.One Lakh was declared for the arrest of accused Manoj Bakkarwara. After escaping from police custody, Manoj Bakkrwara had managed to escape by injuring police officials of Crime Branch in shootout vide FIR No.275/11 U/s 186/353/307/34 IPC & 25/27 Arms Act PS Crime. The raids were conducted at the possible hideouts of Manoj Bakkarwara in Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and Uttranchal to apprehend him. During surveillance, it came into that Manoj Bakkarwara is residing somewhere in Rudrapur, Haldwani and Nainital. He does go back after committing crime in Delhi and nearby areas. A team of Special Cell under the supervision of Inspr Vivek Tyagi consisting of Inspr R.S.Sharawat, Ins Umesh Bhartwal, Insp Neeraj Kumar, ASI Dinesh Singh, HC Pradeep Kumar, HC Surender, HC Arvind, HC Parvesh, HC Gurmeet, Ct Ankit, Ct.Shamsher, Ct Amit Gulia was doing his surveillance at his possible hideouts in Uttranchal. Local sources were deployed there. Tomorrow on 15 Jan 2012, an informer passed information at Haldwani Uttranchal that Manoj Bakkarwara is going Delhi in a stolen Vento car No.UK 04K 7259. He is also having illegal weapon. He would sell Vento car to some of his contact there. I discussed this information with senior officers. The above team immediately left for Delhi. Local sources were deployed. In the night at about 3 AM, an informer arrived in office and passed information that Manoj Bakkarwara, wanted in Crime Branch encounter would come at about 5 AM at Gazipur flyover to deliver car. The information was discussed with senior officers and lodged in daily diary. The above team under the supervision of Insp Vivek Tyagi and ASI Ram Avtar, SI Ravinder Tyagi, HC Rajender, Ct Hemant, Ct Satya Prakash, Ct Amit, Ct Sanjay Nain left from office Spl Cell in 4 private cars and 2 motorcycles at about 4 AM and at about 4.25 AM reached at Gazipur Mandi. The cars were parked at some distance. Due to severe cold and odd time, no public witness was available. Wasting no time, Insp Vivek Tyagi briefed the team members and deployed them at different strategic points. At about 5 A.M., a Vento car No.UK-04K 7259 arrived from border side and stopped on round-about near flyover. A person alighted from driver seat and started walking nearby the car. The informer pointed out this person as Manoj Bakkarwara. He was immediately overpowered with the help of staff. On spot enquiry, his name was revealed as Manoj Sehrawat @ Manoj Bakkarwara @ Manjeet @ Mannu @ Ajay @ Sameer @ Nishant S/o Narain Singh R/oVillage Bakkarwara Delhi. On his cursory search, one Automatic Pistol made in USA was recovered from right side dub of his pant. The No.7100 was engraved on its barrel. The magazine of Pistol was checked by removing it with the help of magazine catch, 4 live rounds were found loaded in it. One more magazine was found in his right side pant pocket. It was checked and found containing 4 live cartridges. All 8 recovered cartridges have the mark KF 7.65 on the bottom. The sketch of pistol and both magazines was prepared on white paper. On measuring, length of barrel 15.1 cm, butt 9.4 cm & complete length 19.6 cm were revealed. Pistol, both magazines and recovered cartridges were kept in a white cloth & their parcel was prepared.This person was sealed with the seal of UK. Form FSL was filled up. The seal after use was handed over to HC Pradeep Kumar. Sealed parcel and FSL form were taken into police possession through seizure memo. On enquiry about car, accused Manoj Bakkarwara told that he had robbed this car at night in December 2011 alongwith his associate namely Raju r/o Bisara Aligarh UP and Jaidev r/o Mathura UP from a driver at Saket, Delhi. On enquiry, the car was found to be robbed vide FIR No. 386/11 dt.13.12.2011 U/s 387/34 IPC PS Saket, Delhi. Accused Manoj Bakkarwara is found committing offence punishable u/s 25/54/59 Arms Act & 411 IPC for possessing illegal weapon and stolen vehicle. The complaint is being sent through ASI Ram Avtar for registration of case. The investigation of the case may be handed over to SI Yudhbir Singh who has already reached at the spot. Date & time of incident 16.01.12 at 5 AM. Place of incident-near round-about below flyover Gazipur Mandi Delhi. Date & Time of sending complaint-16.01.2012 at 7.30 AM.
(ii) CITATION FOR OUT OF TURN PROMOTION OF HEAD CONSTABLE SURENDER 566/SB PIS No.28911735 AND HEAD CONSTABLE PRADEEP KUMAR 622/SB PIS NO.28940072 TO THE RANK OF ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR AND CONSSTABLE SATYA PRAKASH NO.819/SB PIS NO.28882211 TO THE RANK OF HEAD CONSTABLE xx xx ROLE OF POLICE OFFICERS:
When Manoj Bakkarwara continued with his escape spree by escaping from police custody and posed grave danger to the society, a team headed by Insp Umesh Barthwal and Insp Neeraj Kumar were tasked to trace Manoj Bakkarwara. They constituted a team comprising of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash to develop the information about Manoj Bakkarwara and his associates and sympathizers.
This team relentlessly worked day in and day out and finally a combination of human and technical efforts bore fruit when on 16/01/2012, on a specific information Manoj Bakkarwara was apprehended. On his pointing two of his associates namely Jaidev and Raj Kumar were also arrested.
HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash worked as a cohesive unit. They collected the criminal record of Manoj Bakkarwara and deployed their sources to trace his whereabouts. They deployed and prepared a web of informers to extract more and more accurate information. They examined every associate sympathizer and acquaintance of Manoj Bakkarwara.
The teams had to work in very odd circumstances and also have to travel extensively through Delhi, Haryana, UP, Rajasthan, Punjab and Uttarakhand to develop sources as Manoj Bakkarwara kept shifting his base very frequently. Being an auto lifter he was very careful in use of car and changed his car frequently. The telephones of his family, relatives and friends were monitored but he was very alert while using his mobile and most of the time used PCO for making contacts. The studies of his mobiles and PCOs revealed that he used to make calls from PCOs located far away from his hideout and also used to change his whereabouts frequently. At different times he was located in Faridabad, Jaipur, Ludhiana, Chandigarh, Aligarh and Karnal but every time he left place of hiding before the police could reach him as he was in a habit of changing his hideout swiftly.
In the month of August 2011, associates of one Vikas r/o Haryana, a known associate of Manoj Bakkarwara namely Sandeep, Pradeep and Teena were arrested in Ludhiana, Punjab who disclosed about the crimes committed by them along with Manoj Bakkarwara in Delhi and other states. The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash capitalized this catch and thoroughly interrogated accused arrested in Punjab. They gave some vital information about Manoj Bakkarwara, his hideouts and some of the phone numbers used by them, before their arrest.
The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash with the help of team in-charges analyzed the mobile numbers of UP West used by Manoj Bakkarwara, and his associates. But, after the arrest of accused in Punjab the other gang members disposed off their mobile phones, thus making it very difficult for the police to trace them. They studied and analyzed heavy data of call details collected from different cellular operators and basic phone operators. Finally some numbers were identified, which showed the presence of Manoj Bakkarwara and his gang members in Aligarh and Uttarakhand. Accordingly, they along with team members concentrated their efforts in Aligarh and Uttarakhand and located the presence of Manoj Bakkarwara in the area of Sarsol, Aligarh. Since he was swiftly changing his position and mobile phones, manual sources were also deployed along with technical surveillance. It was revealed through manual sources that Manoj Bakkarwara is in touch with one Baliya r/o Bisara, Aligarh, a notorious local criminal.
The team made efforts through manual sources to locate the exact presence of Manoj Bakkarwara. During the process it was learnt that Manoj Bakkarwara has befriended a girl through Balia and is planning to marry her. The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash made tedious efforts in Aligarh to locate that girl. They personally met many property dealers, checked various buildings, and flats in different area of Aligarh. They left no stone unturned to trace Manoj Bakkarwara and that girl and her house.
Their untiring efforts finally laid result in the form of vital information that Manoj Bakkarwara along with that girl has shifted to Rudrapur and Nainital area of Uttrakhand. This information was conveyed to senior officers, immediately a team of Special Cell officials was constituted to act upon the information and to apprehend Manoj Bakkarwara.
The team of Special Cell camped in Rudrapur and developed the sources. One of the source deployed by HC Surender and HC Pradeep gave an input that Manoj Bakkarwara is going to marry that girl in Rampur and would use the name of Samir.This information was verified with sources in Rampur UP. Concerned offices were also alerted about the input and were briefed accordingly. In the meantime it was also revealed that Manoj Bakkarwara has put the family of that girl in some flat in Rudrapur and himself living in Haldwani with that girl.
The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash assisted by other team members made a survey of flats. There were about 3000 flats of OMAXE and Supertech in Rudrapur. They made a tedious yet secret way of verifying the occupant through facility office/in-house job offices of these societies.
During this it was extracted by the team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash that one Sonu Sharma r/o Aligarh, UP is living in a flat in Metropolis society of Supertech and has one more flat in Haldwani, Uttrakhand. Round the clock watch was maintained over the society and in the vicinity. One Volkswagon Vento car and a Fourtuner frequenting the suspected flat were located. The said vehicles were trained several times but every time the driver was able to give a slip to the police. Just not to damage the entire operation the police team proceeded inch by inch, collected and assimilated the information bit by bit and kept its patience. Finally with the help of technical and manual sources, the team were able to zero-in one Gas Godown Road in Haldwani where Manoj Bakarwara was suspected to be living with his would be wife.
As it was the election time in Uttrakhand and every political party was busy in canvassing of their candidate, the team took the privilege and posed as supporter of some political party. The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash along with other team members went door to door and finally able to locate one Bungalow. Local sources were deployed who confirmed the presence of Manoj Bakkarwara in this Bungalow by the name of Samir. Further sources gave the specific input that Manoj Bakkarwara has gone to Delhi in a Vento Car No.UK 04 K 7259 to commit some crime. Immediately this information was conveyed to senior officers in Delhi and the team started following Manoj Bakkarwara with the help of technical and manual inputs but due to dense fog and long distance the team lost the track. Even then the team did not loose its heart and tempo and rejuvenated its sources in Delhi.
Finally one of the sources gave vital information that in the night intervening 15th/16th Jan 2012 that Manoj Bakkarwara along with his accomplices would come to Delhi and would commit heinous crime in the area of South Delhi. On this information, team consisting of Insp Umesh Barthwal, Neeraj Kumar, Vivek Tyagi & R.S.Sehrawat under the supervision of Addl.DCP/Special Cell Shri Bhisham Singh was constituted. Subsequently on receiving more specific input from informer a trap was laid. At around 5.00 a.m., a Volks wagon Vento car No.UK 04 K 7259 come on NH 24 near Ghazipur Mandi Flyover was intercepted by the strong team of Special Cell. Sensing the police presence Manoj Bakkarwara tried to ditch the advancing police party but the police party was alert and well aware of driving skills and previous character of Manoj Bakkarwara wherein he had fired upon the Crime Branch team of Delhi Police, gave no chance to him. The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash put their lives at risk and pounced upon the criminal showing great courage and without caring for their life. Manoj Bakkarwara @ Manu @ Manjit @ Samir @ Nishant @ Ajay (aged 36 years) s/o Shri Narayan Singh r/o Village Bakkarwara PS Mundka, Delhi was apprehended after a long and daring operation. At the time of his arrest he was in possession of robbed Volks Wagon Vento car no.UK-04-K-7259 and one 32 bore pistol made in USA along with 2 magazines along with 8 live cartridges. On this a case FIR 3/12 u/s 25 Arms Act, 411 IPC have been registered at PS Special Cell.
On interrogation about accomplices whom he had come to meet and deliver the said vehicle a specific raid was conducted at ner Anand Vihar Bus stand around 12.00 Noon and two of his accomplices namely Rajkumar @ Raju (aged 19 years) s/o Niwasi Singh r/o village Bisara PS Khair District Aligarh and Jaidev Singh (aged 20 years) s/o Rajpal Singh r/o village Nanakpura PS Naugheel District Mathura UP were also arrested. Our initial interrogation has confirmed that the said vehicle is the one which is wanted in case FIR No.388/11 u/s 382/34 IPC PS Saket, Delhi.
During the entire operation HC Surender, HC Pradeep and CT Satya Prakash exhibited their great presence of mind, uncanny interrogation skills, tremendous preservations, dedication and patience all the time. They have shown the quality at the spot kept themselves cool, took initiative and finally pin down the criminal and has set an example of gallant act, dedication towards their duty, bravery and brilliant work that is more than what is expected from their ranks and very much deserves to be promoted to the next higher rank.
Head Constable Surender, 566/SB joined Delhi Police on 01.08.1991 as a Constable. He has also earned great reputation in the department by doing continuous good and hard work. For his extraordinary and hard work he was promoted out of turn to the rank of Head Constable on 24.07.2007 for arresting Sher Singh Rana shooter of KP Phoolan Devi. He has an unblemished record during his service tenure of 20 years. During his service period, he has earned 33 Commendation Rolls & 29 Commendation Cards and total cash reward of Rs.48,375/-.
Head Constable Pradeep, 622/SB joined Delhi Police on 01.03.1994 as a Constable. He has also earned great reputation in the department by doing continuous good and hard work. For his extraordinary and hard work he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable on 26.12.2006. He has an unblemished record during his service tenure of 17 years. During his service period, he has earned 5 Commendation Rolls & 12 Commendation Cards and total cash reward of Rs.16,650/-.
Constable Satya Prakash, 819/SB joined Delhi Police on 20.09.1988 as a Constable. He has also earned great reputation in the department by doing continuous good and hard work. He has an unblemished record during his service tenure of 24 years. During his service period, he has earned 11 Commendation Rolls & 8 Commendation Cards and total cash reward of Rs.18,300/-.
The team of HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct Satya Prakash has set an example of gallant act, dedication towards duty, bravery and brilliant work that is more than what is expected from their ranks and very much deserves to be promoted to the next higher rank.
Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I strongly recommend that Head Constable Surender 566/SB PIS No.28911735, Head Constable Pradeep Kumar 622/SB PIS No.28940072 and Constable Satya Prakash 819/SB PIS No.28882211 may be promoted, out of turn, to the next higher rank in order to recognize the extraordinary and excellent work done by them.
(iii) CITATION FOR ASADHARAN KARYA PURUSKAR IN RESPECT OF HEAD CONSTABLE (Exe.) PARVESH KUMAR NO.701/SB, CONSTABLE (Exe.) AMIT NO.853/SB, CONSTABLE (Exe.)HEMANT NO.793/SB & CONSTABLE (Exe) ANKIT NO.862/SB.
xx xx Head Constable (Exe.) Parvesh Kumar
Head Constable Parvesh Kumar played pivotal role in tracking the movement of desperado Manoj Bakkarwara. He along with Constable Amit visited many places in Delhi, Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh & Rajasthan and studied the modes operandi of this desperado to extract clues. He along with staff scanned the suspected areas in Aligarh, Rudrapur & Haldwani to get information about this criminal. He also deployed his sources and finally team succeeded to obtain information about this desperado.
On 16.01.2012, at about 5.00 pm, when the desperado Manoj Bakkarwara sensed the presence of police at the place of information near round-about Gazipur Mandi, Delhi & tried to run away. HC Parvesh Kumar put his life at risk and immediately pounced upon desperado Manoj Bakkarwara showing bravery, presence of mind and overpowered him. HC Parvesh Kumar did not give any chance to desperado Manoj Bakkarwara to take out weapon to fire upon police party to evade arrest. H.C.Parvesh also succeeded to take out pistol from the dub of his wearing pant. The recovered pistol was found containing 8 live cartridges of .32 bore calibers. During further search, one more magazine of the pistol was also seized from the wearing pant of this desperado Manoj Bakkarwara.
HC Parvesh Kumar endangered his life for the safety of his team members. He displayed the most personal bravery and gallantry of the highest order in the apprehension of desperate Manoj Bakkarwara. This act of intelligence and bravery under extraordinary circumstances is worth of recognition, which has set an example of dedication to the duty.
Head Consstable (Exe)Parvesh Kumar joined Delhi Police on 22.02.1999. He has earned great reputation in the department by doing continuous good work and there is nothing adverse against him. He has an unblemished record during his service tenure of 12 years. During his service period he has earned 1-Asadharan Karya Puraskar Medal, 13-Commendation Rolls & 26 Commendation Cards and total cash reward of Rs.23,600/-.
Constable (Exe)Amit Constable (Exe)Amit remained an active member of the Special Cell team in whole operation. He along with H.C.Parvesh Kumar visited many suspected areas in Aligarh, U.P. and Rudrapur, Haldwani in Uttrakhand to get information about this desperate criminal. On 16.01.2012, at about 5.00 p.m., the desperado Manoj Bakkarwara reached at the place of information near round-about Gazipur Mandi, Delhi in robbed Volks Wagon Vento car and alighted from it. The team of Special Cell was deployed nearby the spot and keeping watch on his movement. The desperado sensed the presence of police team & tried to run away immediately. Constable Amit pounced upon desperado Manoj Bakkarawara showing bravery, presence of mind and overpowered him with the help of other staff. He did not give any chance to desperado Manoj Bakkarwara to take out weapon to fire upon police party to evade arrest. The recovered pistol was found containing 8 live cartridges of .32 calibers. During search, one more magazine of the pistol was also seized from the wearing pant of this desperado criminal.
Constable Amit has endangered his life for the safety of his team members & displayed the most personal bravery and gallantry of the highest order in this operation. He has set an example of dedication to the duty.
Constable (Exe)Amit joined Delhi Police on 25.10.2004. He has earned great reputation in the department by doing continuous good work and there is nothing adverse against him. He has an unblemished record during his service tenure of 07 years.
Constable (Exe)Ankit Constable (Exe)Ankit played pivotal role in developing information about this desperate criminal Manoj Bakkarwara. He along with Constable Hemant visited at Punjab, Rajasthan, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh and collected minutest details including dossiers of desperado Manoj Bakkarwara and his associates. He along with Ct Hemant minutely scrutinized the mobile phones data of desperado Manoj Bakkarwara and his associates and assisted in putting suspected numbers on interception. He worked day & night in whole operation to extract information through interception & scrutiny of mobile phone data. Constable Ankit remained outstation for weeks & collected information along with team members from Aligarh, Rampur, Rudrapur & Haldwani too. His extraordinary labour bore fruitful result, when the team succeeded to obtain exact information that on 16.01.2012, the desperado would come at around about below bridge near Gazipur Mandi, Delhi in robbed Volks Wagon Vento car. He along with team members joined the raiding party and reached there to apprehend despearado Manoj Bakkarwara at about 4.25 a.m. On 16.01.2012, at about 5.00 a.m., the desperado Manoj Bakkarwara reached near round-about below bridge, Gazipur Mandi, Delhi in robbed Volks Wagon Vento car and alighted from it. The already deployed team was doing secret watch on the movement of this desperado Manoj Bakkarwara but the desperado sensed the presence of police team & tried to run away. Constable Ankit immediately took a spot decision and pounced upon desperado Manoj Bakkarwara showing bravery, presence of mind and overpowered him with the help of other staff. He did not give any chance to desperado Manoj Bakkarwara to take out weapon to fire upon police party to evade arrest. The desperado was found possessing a pistol with 8 live cartridges & one more extra magazine.
Constable Ankit endangered his life for the safety of his team members & displayed the bravery and gallantry of the highest order in this operation. He has set an example of dedication to the duty.
Constable (Exe)Ankit joined Delhi Police on 03.04.2009. He has earned great reputation in the department by doing continuous good work and there is nothing adverse against him. He has an unblemished record during his service tenure of 2 years.
During entire operation, Head Constable (Exe)Parvesh Kumar, Constable (Exe)Amit, Constable (Exe) Hemant & Constable (Exe) Ankit have exhibited their great presence of mind, uncanny interrogation skills, tremendous perseverance, dedication and patience all the time. They have shown the quality at the spot kept themselves cool, took initiative and finally pin down the criminal and has set an example of gallant act, dedication towards their duty, bravery and brilliant work that is more than what is expected from their ranks and very much deserve for Asadharan Karya Puraskar.
Keeping in view the above mentioned facts and circumstances, I strongly recommend that Head Constable (Exe) Parvesh Kumar, Ct (Exe) Amit, Ct (Exe) Hemant and Ct (Exe) Ankit may be given ASADHARAN KARYA PURUSKAR in order to recognize the extraordinary and excellent work done by them.
11. A reading of the relevant portions of the FIR and the recommendation rolls/citations, as reproduced above, makes it clear that the role played by the applicant and three others, who have been granted Asadharan Karya Puruskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- each, is distinctly different from that of the said S/Shri Surender, Pradeep Kumar and Satya Prakash, who have been granted out of turn promotion. Therefore, the distinction as made out by the respondents, or for that matter, by the Incentive Committee, in their cases remains unassailable, and there is no question of any discriminatory treatment meted out to the applicant. Furthermore, it has been emphatically asserted by the respondents in the counter reply that the Incentive Committee made its recommendations after considering the citations and other relevant materials including the entire service records of the said officers. Even though the applicant has pleaded that the Incentive Committee has not taken into account all relevant factors and has taken into account irrelevant factors, while making its recommendation for grant of Asadharan Karya Puruskar to him, yet the applicant has not produced before this Tribunal any material in support of the said plea.
11.1 It transpires from the records that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Cell), who had firsthand knowledge of the roles played by each of the police personnel entrusted with the task, had prepared and submitted the recommendation rolls/citations before the Special Commissioner of Police(Special Police), Delhi. Thereafter, the Special Commissioner of Police (Special Cell), after perusing the said recommendation rolls/citations, submitted the same before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for approval. After the approval was accorded by the Commissioner of Police, the recommendation rolls/citations, along with other relevant materials including the service records of the officers, were placed before the Incentive Committee. The departmental authorities and the Incentive Committee have found that HC Surender, HC Pradeep and Ct.Satya Prakash had been associated in the operation in question right from its beginning and had put in more efforts than the applicant and his colleagues. It has been emphatically asserted in the counter reply that Asadharan Karya Puruskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- was commensurate with the work done the applicant and his colleagues. The law is well settled that Court/Tribunal does not sit as appellate court while exercising power of judicial review. Court/Tribunal cannot substitute its judgment for that of the administrative authority. Even though judicial review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension is not closed, yet Court/Tribunal in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial review is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process.
11.2 As already noted, in HC (Exe.) Balwant Singh Ranas case (supra) the citation for grant of out of promotion of the applicant, along with another Head Constable, was placed before the Incentive Committee, and the Incentive Committee took the view that the contents of the DD entries and FIR did not contain any details that suggest exemplary courage, or an outstanding act shown by the applicant. It was found that the Incentive Committee did not consider the contents of the citation/recommendation roll. Accordingly, the Tribunal remitted the matter back to the Incentive Committee to take a fresh view in the case of the applicant after taking into consideration the contents of the DD, FIR and the citation as well.
11.3 In ASI Devender Kumars case (supra), the Incentive Committee, while recommending the cases of three other police officers for grant of out of turn promotion, decided not to recommend the case of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion on the ground that he had got the benefit of out of turn promotions twice in the past. The Honble High Court of Delhi, after examining the relevant provisions of the Delhi Police Act and Rule 19 of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, held that there was no bar for granting third out of turn promotion to a deserving officer who had shown devotion to duty and displayed gallantry. Accordingly, the Honble High Court quashed the Tribunals order and allowed the writ petition with direction to the respondents to accord benefit of out of turn promotion to the petitioner with effect from the date when three other members were granted such promotion.
11.4 In Kuldeep Kumars case (supra), the Tribunal, after finding that there was no distinction in the role played by the applicant and that of the other officer, who was granted out of turn promotion, directed the Commissioner of Police to re-determine the applicants case for grant of out of promotion.
11.5 In the instant case, it is found that the role played by the applicant and that of the police officers, who have been granted out of turn promotion, are distinctly different; that there was no recommendation roll/citation in favour of the applicant for grant of out of turn promotion; and that the Incentive Committee, after taking into consideration the contents of the citation and other relevant materials including the service record of the applicant, has recommended grant of Asadharana Karya Puruskar with cash reward of Rs.10,000/- to him. Thus, the facts and circumstances of HC (Exe.) Balwant Singh Ranas case (supra), ASI Devender Kumars case (supra), and Kuldeep Kumars case (supra) are clearly distinguishable from that of the present case and hence, the decisions rendered in the said cases are of no help to the applicant.
11.6 As a consequence, we are not inclined to accept the plea of discrimination raised by the applicant.
12. The other contention of the applicant is about rejection/return of his representation dated 30.8.2013. Indisputably, the applicant made the said representation to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. It is pleaded by the applicant that an incompetent authority, vide communication dated 6.9.2013, rejected/returned his representation dated 30.8.2013. The respondents have explained that the communication dated 6.9.2013 does contain any order of the competent authority rejecting the applicants representation dated 30.8.2013, and that since the applicant in the said representation claimed reconsideration of his case by making a wrong statement that he, along with others, was recommended for out of turn promotion, his representation was returned, vide communication dated 6.9.2013. It has also been explained by the respondents that in the communication dated 6.9.2013 correct positions of the applicants case and that of others were only mentioned. After going through the contents of the communication dated 6.9.2013, we do not find any mention therein about any decision to have been taken on his representation dated 30.8.2013 by an authority subordinate to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi. We find that the contents of the said communication dated 6.9.2013 relate to the positions of the case of the applicant and that of others named therein. Though there appears to be some force in the contention of the applicant that his representation ought to have been placed before the Commissioner of Police, Delhi, for consideration and appropriate decision, yet, in view of our findings recorded in the preceding paragraph, we are of the opinion that in the absence of any provision contained in the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation)Rules, 1980 enabling a police officer to make a representation against non-grant of out of turn promotion, the non-consideration of his representation dated 30.8.2013 is not fatal. As regards the cases of Inspector Umesh Bharthwal, Inspector Neeraj Kumar and Inspector Dharmender Kumar, cited by the applicant in the rejoinder, in which the Commissioner of Police is stated to have reconsidered their cases and modified his decisions, the applicant has not produced before this Tribunal the proceedings and decisions taken by the Commissioner of Police in those cases in support of his claim that his case being similar deserves to be reconsidered by the Commissioner of Police. It has been held by the Honble High Court of Delhi in SI Satbir Singhs case (supra) that a police officer has no right to claim out of turn of promotion. In the above view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the applicant about vulnerability of the communication dated 6.9.2013 in support of his claim made in the present O.A.
13. Having given our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the rival contentions of the parties, we find that the O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
O.A.NOS.3417 & 3418 of 2013:
14. In OA No.3417 and 3418 of 2013, the applicants have prayed for quashing and setting aside communications dated 6.9.2013 and for a direction to the respondents to grant them out of turn promotion to their next higher ranks with effect from 14.6.2012, when their team mates were granted out of turn promotion, with all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion, difference in salary, etc. Opposing the O.As., the respondents have filed counter replies in which they have taken the same stand as in the counter reply to OA No. 3413 of 2013. The pleadings of the parties and the documents relied on by the parties in all the three O.As. are mostly common. The learned counsel appearing for the parties also made same submissions as in O.A.No.3413 of 2013. For the reasoning given by us while dealing with OA No.3413 of 2013, we hold that both the O.As. being devoid of merit are liable to be dismissed.
15. In the result, all the three O.A.Nos.3413, 3417 and 3418 of 2013 are dismissed. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (ASHOK KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN