Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH versus DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE U.P. LUCKNOW & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Yogendra Kumar Singh v. Director General Of Police U.P. Lucknow & Others - WRIT - A No. 2173 of 2002 [2007] RD-AH 8839 (9 May 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 26

Civil Misc. Writ  Petition No.2173 of 2001

Yogendra Kumar Singh                  ....                            Petitioner

                                                       Vs.

Director General of Police,U.P.

Lucknow and others                                                      Resondents

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

By means of this writ petition, the petitoner has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.8.2001 passed by respondent no. 1, Director General of Police, Lucknow  and for a direction to the respondents to promote the petitioner forthwith on out of turn basis.

The petitioner was appointed as Constable in Uttar Pradesh Police Department in 1989. He while posted in District Azamgarh was  taken and attached with a Special Squad formed for the abolition of crimes as per the instructions of the then Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh.

It is alleged by the petitioner that he was the only person who by his  tiredless efforts with the help of the Squad got success in nabbing the criminals and  unsocial elements.  It is claimed  that the petitioner showed courage to arrest the criminals red handed for which he was awarded Prashasti Patra on 6.5.1997 by the Superintendent of Police, Mau. The then Superintendent of Police, Mau made a recommendation to the Government for out  of turn promotion of the petitioner which has been appended as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Relevant extract is as under:-

           ^^ ekuuh; eq[; ea=h ] m0 iz0 ds funsZ'kkuqlkj fnukad 9&    97 ls tuin esa pyk;s tk jgs vijk/k mUewyu vfHk;ku ds nkSjku vkj{kh 56 uk0 ;q0 ;ksxsUnz dqekj flag] ftls vfHk;ku gsrq xfBr fo'ks"k LdokMZ ls lEc/n~ fd;k x;k Fkk ds vFkd ifjJe djds fo'ks"k #fp ysdj lqjkxjlh djds rFkk Lo;a nfo'k easa 'kkfey jgdj ekeyksa esa fo'ks"k LdokMZ dks egRoiw.kZ lQyrk fnykus ds ;ksxnku fd;k bl vkj{kh ds iz;klksa ls gqbZ fxjQrkjh@cjkenxh dk fooj.k fuEu gS&

1& fnukad 17&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr ohjsUnz ;kno  vkfn dqy 27 fdxzk vosS/k xaktk ds lkFk fxjQrkj fd;k x;k] eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 161 o 163@97 /kkjk 18@20 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV Fkkuk Vksyk esaa iathd`r gqvk vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

2& fnukad 7&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr jke iyV pkSgku dks 177 fdyksxzke voS/k xkatk ds lkFk fxjQrkj fd;k x;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 164@97 /kkjk 18@20 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV Fkkuk eqgEenkckn esa iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esaa fopkjk/khu gS A

3& fnukad      4&97 dks vfHk;qDr lfPpnkuUn jk; dks 150- fdyksxzke voS/k xkatk ds lkFk fxjQrkj fd;k] ftldk vijk/k la[;k 253&3@97 fdyksxzke /kkjk 18@20 ,u0Mh0ih0,l0 ,DV Fkkuk dksrokyh esa iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; easa fopkjk/khu gS A

4& fnukad  2&4&97 dks vfHk;qDr ijos'k] 'kelkn o ukS'kkn iq= x.k veurqYykg gehniqj ds ;gk  ls voS/k vXus;kL= cuokus dh QSDVjh cjken dh x;h rFkk ,d dVVk nks fjYokyj] v/nZ fufeZr dVVs ds lkFk midj.k cjken gq, ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 185 ls 188@97 /kkjk  25@27@5 'kL= vf/kfuf;e Fkkuk ?kkslh esa iathd`r gqvk ] vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

5& fnukad 2&5&97 dks Hkosu'oj 'kkgh mQZ ekygu 'kkgh ds ;gkW voS/k dVVk oukus dh QSDVjh cjken dh x;h ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 182@97 /kkjk 5@7@25 'kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk e/kqcu esa iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

6& fnukad 2&5&97 dks Jh d`".k rsyh iq= xkSjh'kadj rsyh lk0 oudVk Fkkuk e/kqcu dks rhu vnn~ thfor cEc ds lkFk fxjQrkj fd;k x;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 183@97 /kkjk 5   foLQksVd vf/kfu;e Fkkuk e/kqcu esa iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

7& fnukad 1&5&97 dks vfHk;qDr gfjoa'k flag iq=  doy Hkku flag lk0 dsyoj] Fkkuk ?kkslh   dks ,d vnn fjokYoj ds lkFk fxjQrkj fd;k x;k ftldk eqdnek vijk/k la[;k 206@97   /kkjk 25 'kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk ?kkslh esa iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopkjk/khu gS A

8& fnukad 3&5&97 dks vfHk;qDr lhrkjke iq= fo'oukFk lk0 jlwyiqj Fkkuk ?kkslh dks ,d vnn dVVk rFkk ikWp dkjrwl ds lkFk fxjQrkj fd;k x;k] ftldk  eqdnek vijk/k la[;k  212@97 /kkjk 25 'kL= vf/kfu;e Fkkuk ?kkslh ij iathd`r gqvk A vfHk;ksx U;k;ky; esa fopjk/khu gS A

       mijksDr fxjQrkjh@cjkenxh esa vkj{kh ;ksXksUnz dqekj flag dh Hkwfedk vR;Ur ljkguh; jgh gS A bu miyfC;ksa ds QyLo#i bl vfHk;ku ds nkSjku tuin iqfyl em dh   Nfc mTtoy gqbZ bl vkj{kh dks mijksDr dk;ksZ ds uxn /kujkf'k ls iqjLd`r fd;k x;k rFkk  iz'kfLr i= iznku dh x;h gS A

 vr% Jh ;ksxsUnz dqekj flag] dka0 ukxfjd iqfyl ds ljkguh; mRd`"V] drZO;fu"B ,oa cgqewY; dk;ksZ ds fy, gsM dkULVsfcy ukxfjd iqfyl ds  in ij vkmV vkQZ  VUZk izksUufr iznku dh tkus gsrq izcy laLrqfr dh tkrh gS A

           izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd dka0 56 ukxfjd iqfyl ;ksxsUnz dqekj flag ds fo#/n fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ tkWp@ foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@ vkijkf/kd izdj.k U;k;ky; esa yfEcr ugha gS budh lR;fu"Bk izekf.kr dh tkrh gS A

                                                    g0 vLIk"V

                                                 ¼ ih;w"k vkuUn ½

                                                  iqfyl v/kh{kd

                                                      em A  ^^    

         It is further alleged that the Superintendent of Police, Mau also wrote a letter dated 6.10.1977 to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Zone, Azmagarh reommendating out of turn  promotion to the petitioner. In turn, the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Azamgarh Zone, Azamgarh  by his letter dated 27.6.1998 to the then Superintendent of Police, Mau  directed  him to furnish the details about the petitioner which were, however not  not submitted to him.

It is submitted that the police squad had been constituted for nabbing the criminals which consisted of many police personnel, except the petitioner no other person of the squad was recommendation for out of turn promotion and this fact proves that it was the petitioner and none-else in the squad who did exceptional and extra ordinary courage as a result of which the squad succeeded  in arresting the hardened criminals and reducing the crimes in the range. When no action was taken by the respondents for out of turn promotion of the petitioner, he filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3041 of 2001 before this Court which was disposed of finally vide order dated 31.1.2001 directing the respondents to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law on the question of out of turn promotion of the petitioner expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

It is stated by the petitioner that inspite of the order of this Court having been served  upon the respondents nothing was done, compelling him to  file Civil Misc. Contempt Application No. 1739 of 2001.  The respondents became annoyed by filing contempt petiton  and the Director General of Police by order dated 23.8.2001 rejected the case of the petitioner for out of turn promotion, hence this writ petition.

The counsel for the petitoner submits that the order dated 23.8.2001 is illegal, perverse and arbitrary; that the recommendation was made by the then Superintendent of Police, Mau considering the exemplary and extra ordinary work done by the petitioner taking risk of his life; and that the G.O. Dated 3.2.1994 fully covers and supports the case of the petitioner.

He further submits that the petitioner was the only police personnel who was  recommended  and given cash award by the State Government fund for his exemplary and extraordinary courageous work in nabbing the criminals by spying himself;  and that the report sent by then Superintendent of Police, Mau was wrong, perverse and malafide that the petitioner does not come under the provisions of G.O. Dated 3.2.1994 and it appers that he was not aware of the facts  as the record was not before  him.

The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not shown any extraordinary courage or special role in nabbing the criminals and in recovering illegal arms and ammunitions from them, rather it was on account of joint efforts of police squad constituted for  the purpose and the petitioner has performed his general duty. He also submits that respondent no.1  has rightly passed the order dated 23.8.2001, hence no interference is required by this Court under Artilce 226 of the Cosntitution.

The relevant portion of the order dated 23.8.2001 is as under:-

         ^^ rnuqlkj iqfyl v/kh{kd] em us iqoZ fopkjksijkUr ;kph ds d`R; dks 'kklukns'k fnukafdr 3&2&94 ds vUrZxr vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z izn'kZu dh ifjf/k esa u ikrs gq, vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr dh laLrqfr ugha dh A viuh vk[;k esa iqfyl v/kh{kd] em us ;g Hkh mYys[k fd;k gS fd vijkf/k;ksa dh fxjQrkjh djus esa ,oa uktk;t vlygk dh cjkenxh esa ;kph dks dksbZ O;fDrxr fof'k"V Hkwfedk ugha gS] cfYd iqfyl Ldok;M ds lkewfgd iz;kl ds QyLo#i vijkf/k;ksa  dh fxjQrkj fd;s tkus esa lQyrk izkIr gqb tks iqfyl ds lkekU; drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu ds vUrZxr gS A ;kph ds izR;kosnu esa of.kZr leLr dk;Z mldh fM;qVh ds lkekU; drZO;ksa ds fuoZgu ds vUrZxr gS ] tks fdlh Hkh rjg ds vnE;] vktex<+ ,oa iqfyl egkfujh{kd] okjk.klh tksu us Hkh iqfyl v/kh{kd] em dh vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr u fd;s tkus dh laLrqfr ls lger gksrs gq, ;kph dks izskUufr dh laLrqfr ugha dh gS A

mijskDr of.kZr rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh leh{kk ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqWpk gwW fd ;kph 'kklukns'k fnukafdr 3&2&94 ,oa foHkkxh; funsZ'kksa ds vUrZxr vkmV vkQ VuZ  izksUufr ikus dk ik= ugha gS A bl lEcU/k esa mldk izR;kosnu lkjghu gS A vr% ;kph dk izR;kosnu fnukad 4&3&2001 vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS A

                                                 g0 vLi"V

                                             ¼ vkj0 ds0 ifMr ½

                                              iqfyl egkfuns'kd]

                                                mRrj izns'k A ^^

From perusal of the impugned order it appears that the petittioner has not shown any extraordinary courage and bravery or special role in arresting the criminals and in recovering  the illegal arms and ammunitions from them, rather the criminals were arrested on account of joint efforts of police squad constituted for the purpose. Even from Anenxure-2 relied upon by the petitioner it is apparent that there is no whisper  on any extraordinary courage or exemplary bravery shown by the petitioner by throwing his life in danger of imminent death. All acts done by him were in terms of his duty which all police personnels are supposed to do.

The petitioner has not been found an example for other police officers rather the succees was of the squad working together.

In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order, hence it is not a case which requiries inteference by this Court.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 9.5.2007

CPP/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.