NANHEY LAL GANGWAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties and perused the record. Petitioner, a Sub Inspector of Police has sought out of turn promotion on the ground of showing exemplary courage and gallantry in recovering a kidnapped child. The first writ petition bearing no.28492 of 2003- Nanhey Lal Gangwar Vs. State of U.P.and others was preferred by the petitioner and was disposed of by this Court on 6.9.05 directing the appropriate authorities to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner. Accordingly the Director General of Police has dealt with the representation of the petitioner and dismissed the same vide order dated 18.1.2006. As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the performance of the petitioner was exactly similar to that of Sri Ashok Kumar Station Officer, Police Station, Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad and the Station Officer has been allowed out of turn promotion but the case of the petitioner has been declined. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on two judgements rendered by this Court in the cases of Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.and another 2001 (3) AWC 2163 and Prathviraj Chauhan and another Vs. State of U.P.and others (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2790 in support of the submission. Learned Standing Counsel has filed the counter affidavit and resisted the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner was merely discharging his official duty attached to his post and there was nothing special in the case of the petitioner to allow him out of turn promotion. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Director General of Police has relied on various documents including the report dated 28.10.2003 submitted by the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Ghaziabad. The role of the petitioner was not found to be equivalent to the role of Ashok Kumar. The petitioner's performance has already been appreciated and he was allowed monetary award of Rs.5000/- for showing courage and exhibiting appreciable performance. As far as Ashok Kumar's role is concerned, as per reports relied upon by the Director General of Police, he has shown extraordinary courage, gallantry and bravery in recovering the kidnapped child. Such finding has been recorded by the departmental enquiry committee which has been conducted in pursuance of the incident in question occurred on 15.7.2002. There was nothing substantial in the work, performance of the petitioner which would have deserved him out of turn promotion. This Court while sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot substitute its opinion to the one already formed by the Director General of Police on the basis of report of the departmental enquiry committee and the reports submitted by the Superintend of Police (Rural) and SSP, Ghaziabad. There is no infirmity in the decision making process. As far as the cases cited by the petitioner are concerned, in the case of Krishna Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P.and another 2001(3)AWC 2163 the petitioner in that case, a Sub Inspector of Police had gunned down three dreaded criminals in encounter and had also received fire arm injury for which he remain hospitalised. His case was recommended by Inspector General of Police for out of turn promotion. The other case of Prathviraj Chauhan and another Vs. State of U.P.and others (2006) 3 UPLBEC 2790 cited by the counsel for the petitioner has no applicability to the present set of facts. In the present case, the immediate officer of the department and departmental committee had not recommended the name of the petitioner for out of turn promotion. The police personnel had not shown indominant courage and gallantry of higher order by personally risking his life. It is the duty of such a Sub Inspector of Police to discharge his duties to the best of his ability and courage. In view of the above, I find no merit in the petition and same is accordingly dismissed.