Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Karan vs Comm. Of Police on 31 October, 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
OA No.939/2014
New Delhi, this the 31st day of October, 2019
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
ASI Ram Karan
No.1045/SB
Spl. Cell/SR/NFC
R/o B-252, Gali No.2,
Near D.Y.S. School,
Uttarakhand Enclave, Burari,
Delhi 110 084. .... Applicant.
(By Advocates: Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Shri Gagan
Chawla)
Versus
1. Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police,
MSO Building, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
2. Special CP
Special Cell, IP Estate
PHQ,
New Delhi.
3. Jt. Commissioner of Police (Crime)
IP Estate, PHQ,
Delhi Police.
4. Shri Sandeep Yadav
Dy. Commissioner of Police
Special Cell,
New Delhi. ... Respondents.
(By Advocate : Ms. Rashmi Chopra)
2
: O R D E R (ORAL) :
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman:
The applicant is working as Assistant Sub Inspector (ASI) in Delhi Police (DP). In the year 2012, he was attached to the Special Cell of Delhi Police. It is stated that he was instrumental in the arrest of one of the dreaded criminals of Delhi, by name, Satish Kumar @ Pawan in the year 2005, and that the same criminal was at large in the year 2012 and committed heinous crimes. It is stated that a team headed by Shri Ramesh Lamba, Inspector, SI Vidyadhar, SI Vinay Kumar, SI PawanDahiya, and various others including him was formed to apprehend Satish, and in the process he made a trip to Dehradun and Haridwar to locate the place of the criminal. It is stated that the criminal was apprehended on 02.07.2012.
2. The Delhi Police rewarded 3 officers with out of turn promotion, and 30 officers, including the applicant, with cash. The grievance of the applicant is that though he played a pivotal role in apprehending the criminal, he was denied out of turn promotion. He made several representations in this behalf, and when nothing positive was coming out, he filed this OA with a prayer to direct the respondents to finalise his case for grant of out of turn promotion, in terms of the recommendations made by the 3 Special Commissioner of Police. He submits that the Special Commissioner who examined the case in detail felt that his case for grant of out of turn promotion needs to be considered, whereas the 3rd respondent who was handling the issue did not act impartially.
3. On behalf of the respondents, a detailed counter affidavit is filed. It is stated that the task of apprehending the criminal Satish was entrusted to Special Cell/NDR, and the applicant who was in Special Cell, Southern Region, was not part of the team. According to them, the applicant volunteered to identify the said criminal and for the services rendered by him, he was rewarded with the cash of Rs.10,000/-, the highest amount only after the reward to the head of the team.
4. It is stated that the out of turn promotion was given only to the officials who have exhibited valor and courage and put their life to risk in apprehending the criminal, and the applicant was no way similar to them. The respondents further stated that when the head of the team himself was rewarded with cash, the applicant who was not even part of the team cannot expect out of turn promotion. 4
5. We heard Ms. Harvinder Oberoi, learned counsel for the applicant and Ms. Rashmi Chopra, learned counsel for the respondents.
6. The prayer in the OA is to direct the respondents to extend the benefit of out of turn promotion to the applicant. There is a serious doubt about the justifiability of such issues. The promotion which is claimed is not provided under the rules, nor is guided by executive instructions. It all depends upon the task assigned to the team and the amount of valor and courage exhibited by the members of the team. Reliance is placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Umesh Barthwal vs. GNCT of Delhi and Others W.P. (C) No.5203/2012 and others decided on 06.03.2013. That was more a case about discrimination, than the one adjudging the parameters for conferment of the benefit of out of turn promotion.
7. Even otherwise certain basic facts are required to be taken into account. The first is that the task of apprehending the named criminal was assigned to the Special Cell/NDR. The applicant was not part of it and he is attached to the Special Cell, Southern Region. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that when the issue pertaining to the apprehending of the criminal was discussed in the NDR Cell, the applicant happened to visit that office and 5 offered his services to identify the criminal since he has seen him earlier. To that extent, the respondents did not dispute, and the applicant has also visited Dehradun and Haridwar for this purpose.
8. The record discloses that more than 30 police personnel were associated with the team. It is only 3 of them, namely, Head Constables, Bachu Singh and Praveen Kumar and Constable Mr. Sunil Dagar, that were recommended for out of turn promotion. As many as 30 police personnel were distributed the cash reward of Rs.1,50,000/- that was declared on head of the criminal. The applicant is the recipient of the second highest amount. The head of the team, Inspector Ramesh Lamba was rewarded with Rs.25,000/- Inspector Pawan Kumar and SI Vinay Kumar and the applicant rewarded with cash of Rs.10,000/- each. Two other Sub Inspectors were rewarded with only Rs.3,000/- and Rs.6,000/- respectively and one women Sub Inspector was rewarded with only Rs.1500. Five ASIs who were part of the team were rewarded with amounts between Rs.1000 and Rs.6000. In this scenario, the applicant cannot make any grievance at all. The Tribunal cannot undertake judicial review of such proceedings and much would depend upon the ground reality. 6
9. We do not find any basis to grant any relief to the applicant. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Mohd. Jamshed) (Justice L. Narasimha Reddy) Member (A) Chairman /pj/