GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the present case is that though he was also one of the members of the raiding party, who arrested hardened criminals, still local rank promotions have been awarded to other members of the raiding party, but the same has been denied to him. He has only been awarded a certificate and cash award of Rs. 2,500/ -, whereas some members of the raiding party were granted double promotions. The petitioner has made representation dated 14.5.2013 for consideration of his case also in the same line, however, the same has not been responded to. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage in case a direction is issued to the Director General of Police, Punjab for considering the claim of the petitioner, as made in the aforesaid representation. In terms of the reply dated 10.10.2013 in response to an application filed under the Right to Information Act, it has been admitted that Director General of Police is competent to award two promotions together to an employee for his commendable job in lieu of reward under Rule 13.21 of the Punjab Police Rules.

(2.) CONSIDERING the prayer made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider the representation made by the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It is made clear that these types of commendations and promotions should not be awarded hurriedly merely after an alleged accused has been arrested even without waiting for the outcome of the prosecution case, as it is seen that in many cases the prosecution ultimately fails. Meaning thereby, the persons, who may have been arrested initially in some case, considering them to be criminals, are found to be innocent by the court, but still immediately on arrest, the promotions and rewards are granted to the members of the raiding party. Recently Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Gujarat v. Krishanbhai etc., : 2014 (1) SCALE 177 has opined that in case of failure in prosecution, the Investigating Officer/agency should also be held responsible. Relevant paras thereof are extracted below: