Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Head Constable Prakash Veer vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 2 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI OA NO.204/2008 NEW DELHI THIS THE 2nd DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011 HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) HONBLE DR. K.B. SURESH, MEMBER (J) Head Constable Prakash Veer No.2/E, PIS no.28851119 (Presently posted at PCR), S/o Sh. Gurshoi R/o Village & PO-Makanpur, Distt. Ghaziabad, U.P. Applicant. (By Advocate: Shri Sourabh Ahuja) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi Through Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. Lt. Governor, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Raj Niwas, Delhi. 3. Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi 4. Joint Commissioner of Police,(Head Quarter), PHQ, IP Estate, MSO Building, New Delhi Respondents. (By Advocate: Mrs. Rashmi Chopra) :ORDER (ORAL):
DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMEBR (A):
In order to give incentive for the bravery and gallantry works Delhi Police has formulated incentive policy as per which the Head Constable, Prakash Veer, Applicant herein, has been seeking out of turn promotion for the extra ordinary effort taken by him beyond the call of his duty. The Applicant visited earlier the Tribunal in OA No.532/2006 seeking the same relief for out of turn promotion which on consideration was rejected by the Respondents on 11.2.2005 and Applicant was awarded Asadharan Karya Purskar (AKP) with cash reward to Rs.5000/-. As he has refused the said reward of Rs.5000/-, he has been pressing the Respondents to offer him out of turn promotion claiming that he deserves to be treated in a better manner.
2. In the OA No.532/2006 which was decided on 21.9.2006 this Tribunal made a very extensive analysis as to how the Applicant was eligible to be considered for out of turn promotion. As this is Applicants 2nd visit and in the earlier OA (OA No.532/2006) facts have been well narrated, we are not repeating the same. However, it would suffice for us to cite the relevant paragraphs which read as follows:-
8. If one has regard to the above, the condition precedent for consideration for Out of Turn Promotion is that when one risks his life being a police official and acts bravely beyond the call of the duty and if the act does not concern about bravery and gallantry, it should be examined whether the achievement in question was the result of the efforts put in by the official which could be termed as beyond the call of the duty. In this view of the matter, what has been done by the Applicant is that, when on the basis of information he has reported along with two constable to the house of the former Union Law Minister Shri Shanti Bhushan where robbers raided his house, the Minister concerned was inside the house along with his family members. The robbers locked the house from inside. They also fired on police party. Applicant having sustained bullet injuries on his chest, without caring of his life scuffled with the armed robbers and finally grappled with two of them despite bullet injuries as well as sharp injuries on his body. Whereas accompanying police official out of fear fled the spot. Due to his extra ordinary efforts made, the robbers attempt was foiled. If immediate action not been taken by the Applicant and if he had waited for the armed police personnel to reach, that would have let to serious implications and robbery would have been completed and it might have caused death of all or some of the family members inside the house. In such view of the matter, the act done by unarmed Applicant was such an act which, by all stretch of imaginations, is beyond the duty call and is not only an act of gallantry but bravery as well forms an exceptions. When a police official shouldering his duty without carrying arms had put up a brave front to the armed robbers in order to save the lives of citizens, it speaks volume about his courage and devotion to the duty and requires nothing more to consider his case for out of turn promotion. In such an event when the case of the Applicant for out of turn promotion was recommended and, on consideration of such a finding, rejection of the said claim by the Incentive Committee merely on the ground that robbers could not have been arrested, is not a valid piece of administrative order which, in our eyes, is not justifiable to deny out of turn promotion on the ground that the act of bravery would have been completed with the arrest of the robbers. It seems that they wanted the Applicant to have waited, in such a critical situation, till the armed police personnel reached there. Had the Applicant not been there, robbers would have succeeded in robbery and lives of the persons in the house would have been at great risk. Applicant had protected the lives and foiled the robbery by risking his own life. In such circumstances, grant of cash award of Rs.5000/- with Asadharan Karya Puraskar is not a bounty to his act of bravery and is also in consonance with the provisions of Rules ibid whereas he should have deserved more legally. In such view of the matter, we find that the decision of the Respondents is without application of mind to the aforesaid circular and the fact and circumstances leading to the recommendation for out of turn promotion.
9. In judicial review, when public functionaries do not act in consonance with law, statutory discretion when exercised non-judiciously remedy to correct this lies in law on remand to the authorities.
10. In the result, OA is partly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the Applicant for grant of out of turn promotion in consonance with the circular and the observation made by us above and pass a detailed and speaking order within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
3. Pursuant to the above directions, it is alleged by the Applicant that the Respondents did not act in a proper manner but they without adequate application of mind and appreciation of his bravery, rejected the claim of the Applicant vide order dated 13.12.2006 (Annexure -A1). In the meantime, the Applicant moved a Contempt Petition before this Tribunal (CP No.38/2007) which was decided on 16.3.2007. In the said order, this Tribunal while dismissing the CP, liberty was granted to the Applicant to challenge the same in accordance with the rules and law on the subject. He moved the Honble Supreme Court of India in the SLP (Civil No.14942/2007), which was dismissed on 5.9.2007. Thus, the Applicant has travelled to this Tribunal again claiming the following reliefs:
(a) to quash & set aside the impugned order referred in Para-1 of OA and to direct the Respondents to consider the valid claim of Applicant for promotion to the rank of ASI (Exe.) on out of turn basis and if he is found eligible grant him all consequential benefits i.e. promotion, seniority, difference in pay etc.,
(b) to call for the records whereby Applicants case for promotion to the higher rank on out of turn basis was rejected illegally, arbitrarily and without application of mind.
(c ) to award cost in favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents.
(d) to pass any further order, which this Honble Tribunal may deem fit, just equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. During the hearing Shri Sourabh Ahuja, learned counsel for the Applicant referring to the details of the case in which the Applicant has shown exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty contended that the incentive scheme in Delhi Police envisages financial reward or out of turn promotion. Though, the Applicant has shown extra ordinary act of bravery at very odd time and circumstances risking his life, sustained injury and protected the House of the Minister, his relatives and his assets from the robbers, he was offered Rs.5000/- incentive reward. He submits that the Applicant deserves to have been given out of turn promotion for showing exceptional gallantry and devotion to duty beyond the call of duty. He submits that out of turn promotion has been rejected in a very casual manner without going into the details of the exemplary work that the Applicant did. He drew our attention to the incident where in one of the robbers opened fire in which the Applicant sustained bullet injuries while grappling with two of the accused and sustained serious injuries The Applicant was hospitalized. His request for out of turn promotion was rejected on the ground that (i) he was immediately recommended by the DCP, East after the incident on 7.11.2002 for AKP; (ii) the main Security Guard who was really fighting with the robbers and sustained injuries was granted AKP, and (iii) the Applicant could not get the robbers arrested and the Applicant only sustained minor injuries. Thus, he was denied out of turn promotion. Counsel for Applicant placing his reliance on the judgment by this Tribunal in a batch of 7 Original Applications decided on 1.6.2010 (OA No. 3681/2009 and 6 other OAs.) wherein it was indicated that on the basis of the recommendations of the earlier incentive committee, the Respondents Commissioner of Police, Delhi was directed to consider the case of those Applicants for out of turn promotion. He also placed his reliance of another judgement by this Tribunal passed on 24.2.2010 in the case of Surender Kumar Sand Versus Union of India and Others (OA No.946/2007). In this background, counsel for Applicant states that Respondents may be directed to reconsider the case to appreciate properly the evidence available with them.
5. On the contrary, Mrs. Rashmi Chopra learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the counsel for the Applicant. She submits that the Applicants case has been carefully reexamined by the competent authority on the basis of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.532/2006. The Incentive Committee found that the Security Guard, who sustained severe injuries, was the main person who prevented the robbery to take place. The Applicant sustained minor injuries. For the said bravery he was considered and was granted AKP. On the recommendation of his case for the 2nd time he was found not fit to be granted out of turn promotion. But the Applicant, who was rewarded by granting him AKP cash reward of Rs.5000/-. She submitted that the Incentive Committee reconsidered the case on 8.2.2005 along with others, and it was mentioned that since no accused was arrested on the spot by the Applicant, he was awarded AKP. His case was not recommended by the Incentive Committee for out of turn promotion which was accepted by the Commissioner of Police. On the basis of the above, the Applicant has been informed by the competent authority. Her contention is that the executives are in a better position to appreciate whether a Police Officer is entitled to get out of turn promotion or get AKP cash reward. On the basis of the Incentive Committee analysis which considers various facts of the incident to come to the conclusion as to whether the case of the Applicant deserves to be reconsidered for grant of out of turn promotion or not. The Tribunal should not interfere in the matter as there has been proper application of mind by the competent authority.
6. In this regard, she drew our attention to the judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi in WP (C) No.10733/2009 decided on 9.8.2010 in the case of Commissioner of Police and Others Versus SI Satbir Singh wherein while allowing the Writ Petition it quashed the Tribunals order dated 9.3.2009 passed in OA No.1746/2003. The Respondents in that OA were directed to consider for an out of turn promotion of the Applicant. Subsequently, in another case (OA No.625/2007) a direction was given to grant the Applicant out of turn promotion with retrospective effect for the exemplary work done by him in the year 1998. The said order of the Tribunal was quashed and Writ Petition was allowed by the Honble High Court of Delhi. She, therefore, submits that the OA being devoid of merits should be dismissed.
7. The facts of the case would reveal that Applicant and Security Guard, both of them, confronted the robbers. In the process of grappling to catch hold the robbers, the Security Guard who was in the front, sustained serious injuries, and the Applicant only sustained minor injuries. Both of them have done well to prevent the dacoits in the Ministers house. On duty, the work done by both of them is exemplary. But which work needs to be rewarded with out of turn promotion or to be granted AKP, can be properly assessed, analysed and appreciated only by the competent executive authority. We note that after the directions by this Tribunal in OA No.532/2006, the Incentive Committee met for the second time and reexamined the Applicants case and have noted reasons as to why out of turn promotion is not admissible to the Applicant but AKP would suffice for the exemplary work. We need not have to go beyond the decision of the executive competent authority based on the views of the Incentive Committee. The Commissioner of Police has taken right decision in accepting the recommendations of the Incentive Committee on the claim of the Applicant.
8. Further, in the present matter, interference of this Tribunal would not be necessary to find whether the decision is reasonable and proper but how the executives have taken the decision. We need to examine whether the decision making process has been done in a proper manner or not? A perusal of records produced before us by the Respondents reveals that no sooner the incident was reported, the case of the Applicant along with the Security Guard has been very carefully examined by Incentive Committee and on the basis of the recommendations of the Incentive Committee, the competent authority has accepted the same and has ordered for the cash reward of AKP (Rs.5000). The Applicant on his part has rather been very demanding. He refused to accept the said AKP and claimed to be given out of turn promotion. Further, it is noted that he has refused to receive the AKP of Rs.5000/- on the ground that if he received the same his demand for out of turn promotion would not be admissible. It is noticed from the records that the Applicant has mis-represented the facts. Respondents noted that the robbers had succeeded in committing the robbery and only when they were escaping the Applicant and the Security Guard encountered the robbers. They could not even be arrested by the Applicant on the spot and the robbers succeeded in escaping. It was later on that they were arrested. The Applicant is no way connected to the arrest of the robbers. It had been noted that just because he got pellet injuries, he could not be considered for out of turn promotion. The efforts put in by the Applicant has been properly acknowledged by the competent authority and have awarded him AKP in the form of cash reward. A very close scrutiny of papers, we find that the competent authority has taken due care and processed even for the 2nd time the Applicant demand for out of turn promotion but he found the Applicant fit to be given only AKP. It has been noted by them that the Security Guard (Surjit Singh) who was very seriously injured, was also given the commendation with the cash reward of Rs.3000/- compared to the minor injuries sustained by the Applicant. As such he has not been found to be given out of turn promotion. It is noticed that there has been proper reconsideration of the case, there is proper application of mind and we find that the decision making process is legally sustainable and procedurally firm. As the proverbial saying goes the means justifies the end. In the present case the decision making process adopted for the 2nd time by the Respondent and the decision arrived by them are legally maintainable.
9. Having considered the full facts and circumstances of the case and after due scrutiny of relevant files placed by the Respondents, we come to the considered conclusion that the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Respondents rejecting the claim of the Applicant for out of turn promotion to the higher rank is sustainable in the eyes of law. The Applicant has not made out the case in his support calling for our intervention. There is no arbitrariness or discrimination or unreasonableness by the competent authority in passing the said order of rejection against the Applicant. On the basis of the reasons stated within, Original Application is found to be devoid of merits and, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
(Dr. K.B. Suresh (Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) Member (J) Member (A) /jk