Sangam Lal Mishra vs Sri Vikram Singh, Director General of Police

Sabhajeet Yadav, J.—Heard Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant. The order which I propose to pass in this case, I need not hear opp. party.

By this contempt application the applicant has sought direction from this Court to comply with the direction of this Court dated 23.5.2008 by which this Court has directed the authorities concerned to reconsider out of turn promotion of the applicant and pass such other and further orders which this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

It is stated that vide judgement and order dated 23.5.2008 a Division Bench of this Court has requested the respondents concerned to consider the claim of the applicant for out of turn promotion in the light of the judgements of this Court rendered in case of Ashok Rana v. Home Secretary, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow and Ors. reported in (2002) 41 ALR 248 and Puran Singh Mehra v. The State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2003 ALJ 1673. But while deciding the representation of the applicant in pursuance of direction of this Court dated 23.5.2008, the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh has miserably failed to consider the ratio of decisions of aforesaid judgements and erroneously held that the facts of case of the applicant are distinguishable from the facts of aforesaid cases, though the ratio of the aforesaid decisions has full application in respect of the claim of the applicant. He has further submitted that once a Division Bench of this Court has specifically directed the authorities to consider the claim of the applicant in the light of aforesaid decisions, it was not open for the authorities concerned to take different view and distinguish the facts of instant case from the facts of the aforesaid cases.

I have considered the aforesaid submission and perused the record. From careful reading of the judgement and order of this Court dated 23.5.2008 it is clear that this Court has never made any observation that the ratio of aforesaid decisions shall apply to the facts of the case of the applicant. For ready reference, it would be appropriate to quote the relevant part of the order dated 23.5.2008 rendered by Division Bench of this Court as under:

Shri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that no speaking order has been passed by the statutory authority while rejecting the claim of the appellant for out of turn promotion. In support of his submission, he has placed a very heavy reliance upon the judgements of this Court in Ashok Rana v. Home Secretary, U.P. Shasan, Lucknow and Ors. reported in (2002) 41 ALR 248; and Puran Singh Mehra v. The State of U.P. and Anr. reported in 2003 ALJ 1673. S Sri Shandilya, learned standing counsel has produced the photocopy of the order dated 06.02.2004 wherein the same reason has been given as has been given by the learned Single Judge. However, the aforesaid two judgements cited before us explain the meaning of exemplary courage and bravery on the part of the officer and on the basis of the aforesaid judgements, it can be held that it is the attempt of the officer participating in the encounter without caring for his life, which is material while considering the out-of-turn promotion and not that by his act any miscreant or dacoit has been killed, injured or apprehended.

Thus, in our opinion, the matter requires reconsideration by the Committee constituted by the State for this purpose.

In view of the above, we dispose of the appeal requesting the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim of the petitioner-appellant in the light of the judgments of this Court in the case of Ashok Rana (supra) and Puran Singh Mehra (supra) by a reasoned and speaking order, expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of filing a certified copy of this order before authority concerned.

From a careful analysis of the aforesaid decision there is nothing to indicate that while deciding the case of the applicant in special appeal this Court has ever held that the facts of the case of the applicant are identical to the facts of the aforesaid cases and ratio of the aforesaid decisions is applicable to the case of the applicant, instead thereof this Court has merely directed that the case of the applicant shall be considered in the light of decisions of Ashok Rana''s case and Puran Singh Mehra''s case. Therefore, while considering the claim of out of turn promotion of the applicant it was open for the competent authority to draw distinction between the facts of the case of the applicant and facts of the aforesaid cases. And while deciding the case of the applicant if the Director General of Police has distinguished the facts of the case of the applicant from those of Ashok Rana''s case and Purna Singh Mehra''s case, I do not find any fault in it. At any rate even if the Director General of Police while deciding the representation of the applicant has committed any illegality and error in following the ratio of decision of Ashok Rana''s case and Puran Singh Mehra''s case, in that eventuality also it cannot be held that he has willfully and deliberately defied the order dated 23.5.2008 passed by this Court in special appeal filed by the applicant so as to make him liable for willful disobedience of the said direction. Thus, in my opinion, no case of willful disobedience and defiance of the order passed by this Court is made out. Accordingly, I am not inclined to initiate contempt proceeding against Director General of Police, U.P.

However, in case the applicant feels aggrieved by the order dated 15.01.2009 passed by the Committee headed by Director General of Police, U.P., it shall be open to the applicant to challenge the same on merit before appropriate forum.

The contempt application is misconceived, hence dismissed.