A.K. Sikri, J.

1. In this Public Interest Litigation the petitioner is questioning the conferment of prestigious Presidents Police Medal for gallantry on the respondent No. 4, an I.P.S. Officer.

2. Admittedly, an encounter took place in District Mirzapur, Uttar Pradesh between Varanasi Police and a group of hardcore criminals on 4th/5th March, 2001. In this encounter a hardcore wanted criminal Preetam Singh was killed. There was a casualty of person in uniform as well, since one Sub-Inspector Ajay Singh was also killed in the exchange of fire. Some other Police Officials received serious injuries. Again indisputably, this Police team was led by the respondent No. 4. After this episode, Senior Superintendent of Police, Varanasi recommended the names of three Police Officers including the respondent No. 4 for Presidents Police Medal for gallantry and ultimately Notification dated 18.10.2002 of the Presidents Secretariat was published in the Gazette of India declaring Award of Police Medal for Gallantry to S/S Ajay Singh, Sub-Inspector(posthumous), Ratan Singh, Sub-Inspector and Dr. G.K.Goswamy, ASP ( respondent No. 4).

3. The case of the petitioner is that there was hardly any gallantry shown by the respondent No. 4 in the aforesaid encounter and he could not have been conferred with the said Award. This belief of the petitioner prompted him to file present writ petition with the prayer that direction be issued to the respondent No. 1, Union of India to withdraw the name of the respondent No. 4 from the list of awardees of Police Medal for gallantry. Direction is also sought for to the effect that instead, name of Sub-Inspector K.P. Singh be considered for Award of this Medal. Not only this the petitioner also wants initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No. 3, namely, Senior Superintendent of Police, who had recommended the names for Award, as well as against the respondent No. 4.

4. As pointed out above, the case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 4 has shown no act of bravery in the aforesaid encounter. In fact, according to him, respondent No. 4 suffered some simple injuries in the said episode. However, thereafter record was manipulated to show that he had received serious injuries. Therefore, as there was no act of gallantry on the part of the respondent No. 4, he was not worthy of the Presidents Police Medal. Mr.Prashant Bhushan, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner tried to make good the aforesaid version by referring to certain record to which we shall now advert to.

5. He submitted that immediately after the incident, respondent No. 4 was examined on 5.3.2001 at 3.40 PM by CMO, SSPG Hospital, Varanasi wherein following injuries were recorded:

INJURY:

1. Abrasion and confusion 1.00 x 0.75 cm on Lt. Side top of beard 12 cm above (Lt.) ear, margins of abrasion blackened.

2. Abrasion 0.75 x 0.5 cm on (Lt.) temple area 2.5 cm away (Lt.) eyebrow-scab forming.

3. Contusion 3 x 2 cm on back of (Lt.) wrist mainly towards outer border colour black blue.

4. Small burn area 0.75 x 1/2 cm on front of (Lt.) arm outer aspect 14 cm below (Lt.) shoulder.

5. Two small burn areas on outer aspect of (Rt.) Arm upper part.

6. The opinion of the Doctor on the basis of his examination and the extent of aforesaid injuries was as under:

All the injuries are simple by nature.

(1) caused by friction of hard hot substance.

(2) and (3) caused by blunt and hard object and injury No. (4) and (5) is caused by small particles.

Duration about 1/2 day.

7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner thus argued that the injuries suffered by the respondent No. 4 were simple in nature. There was no mention that these injuries were caused by bullet. Referring to the oral information about the encounter lodged by the respondent No. 4 with the Police Station Lalganj, Mirzapur at 00.45 hours dated 5.3.2001 he pointed out that although respondent No. 4 mentioned therein that he had come with his injured colleagues in his vehicle and in view of their serious condition he was taking them to Varanasi in another Tata Sumo for immediate medical attention, he never stated there that he was also badly injured and got head injuries. Likewise in the FIR lodged by him there is no mention of any serious injuries suffered by him, wherein he had stated in respect of the injuries as under:

I also got down from the gate of the driving seat crawling, took position and fired from my carbine. Fire came from under the Indica car from behind and K.P. Singh also started crying in pain. At this I fired heavily without caring for my life. Then the criminals opened the gate of Indica car and got inside. In the meantime firing also started from the ambassador car having red beacon light on top and firing, both the vehicles managed to escape. All of us were hurt. S.O. Shri Ajai Singh was silent and others were crying in pain. I myself came on the driving seat and driving went to P.S. Lalganj to inform and then came driving to Varanasi. I took everyone to Haritage Hospital where Ajai Singh was declared dead. Others are badly injured and are undergoing treatment. Myself, a bullet had gone scratching deep skin at the top of my head.

8. It may be mentioned that the Magisterial inquiry was also ordered into the incident and to find as to whether it was real encounter. The said inquiry concluded that encounter in question was true one. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon this inquiry report to contend that :

A. There was no reference to injury suffered by the respondent No. 4 although names of other two police officials who suffered serious injuries were mentioned in the inquiry report and from this it could be inferred that the respondent No. 4 did not suffer any serious injuries.

B. The inquiry had categorically dealt with the commendable work done by certain officers and name of the respondent No. 4 was conspicuously missing therefrom.

C. The said inquiry report also returned the findings that there was poor planning in carrying out the encounter and in spite of such poor planning by the respondent No. 4, he was awarded the Police Medal.

9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also argued with vehemence that the respondent No. 4 had fabricated Hospital record relating to his injuries and produced forged record in this Court for which he was liable to be prosecuted under Section 340, Cr.P.C. This is the aspect which we shall deal with in appropriate stage.

10. Respondent No. 4 was represented by Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, Sr. Advocate who countered petitioners arguments. Other respondents supported his case by adopting the arguments advanced by him. At the outset, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the petition was motivated. There was some previous animosity between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 as the respondent No. 4 had sent a confidential report to then District Magistrate, Varanasivide letter dated 5.6.2000 against the activities of the petitioner as he tried to help few imprisoned criminals by trying to enter the jail. As the petitioner got prejudiced and, therefore, he had grudge against the respondent No. 4, this motivated him to file mala fide petition. He also challenged the credentials of the petitioner by submitting that he had never done any social work for justice and against the corruption as claimed by him in the petition. He had never filed any PIL for the benefit of common people.

11. On merits, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed full facts about the incident and had tried to project distorted picture. His submission was that award of gallantry is not because of injuries alone suffered by a police officer. Referring to the rules for conferment of such award he argued that the award could, inter alia, be conferred for certain gallantry in saving life and property or in preventing crime or arresting criminals, the risks incurred being estimated with due regard to the obligations and duties of the officer concerned. His submission was that the entire thrust of the petitioners argument by alleging that the injuries suffered by the respondent No. 4 were not serious but were ill-founded and irrelevant. His submission was that what was to be seen whether the act of the respondent No. 4 was gallant and it was this yardstick on the basis of which Government decided that the respondent No. 4 was entitled to receive such an award. In support of this submission he read out the recommendation which was sent for award of prestigious Presidents Police Medal. Para 20 thereof explained in brief the description of the conspicuous gallant action on the part of recommendee in the following words:

On 4/5 March, 2001, Dr. G.K. Goswamy, ASP, Varanasi along with his team members, SI Ajay Singh and others attempted to nab dreaded rewarded criminals Kripa Shankar R/o Varanasi and Preetam Singh r/o Mirjapur and his gang hiding in a village near Halia P.S. Lalganj, Distt. Mirjapur. The gangsters opened indiscriminate firing using automatic weapons on converging police team with the intention to kill. Dr. G.K. Goswamy and his team members undeterred by the sustained firing, without caring for their personal safety, returned fire. In the exchange of fire, dreaded criminal Preetam Singh was killed and SI Ajay Singh succumbed to injuries. ASP Goswamy, SIs K.P. Singh and Ratan Singh and Constables Jitendra Yadav, Chandrika Yadav, Jagat Singh and Virendra Yadav received bullet injuries. The police team led by ASP Dr.Goswamy displayed exemplary gallantry and courage, and leadership of the highest order in this remarkably successful operation.

12. He submitted that the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Circle had also written a letter to Inspector General of Police, Varanasi Zone recommending out-of-turn promotion to the Police Officers wherein it was highlighted that Police team had moved under the leadership of Dr. G.K. Goswamy, Asst. Superintendent of Police, respondent No. 4 to locate and arrest the accused involved in triple murder. He further submitted that the petitioner was unnecessary trying to enter into controversy regarding nature of injuries suffered by respondent No. 4. He submitted that there was no dispute that the respondent No. 4 had suffered certain injuries. It was also not in dispute that one bullet had gone scratching the top of the head. May be, because of this reason in the recommendatory letter against Col. 6 it was written that the respondent No. 4 had got gun shot injury on head and pellet injuries all over body. However, he reiterated that the nature of injuries suffered hardly had any bearing on the decision to confer award upon the respondent No. 4 which was primarily given because of leadership qualities and the courage shown by the respondent No. 4 in leading the team in the said encounter against dreaded criminals.

13. We have considered the submissions of Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record placed before us. Before dealing with these contentions, it would be necessary to scan through the statutes and rules relating to this prestigious Presidents Police Medal and the Police Medal for gallantry. These are issuedvide Notification Nos. 3-Pres and 4-Pres dated 1.3.1951. Amendments thereto are made from time to time. By the aforesaid Notifications the President is pleased to institute certain awards including Presidents Police Medal with which we are concerned. Rule-4 relating to Presidents Police Medal provide that said medal shall be awarded in the following cases:

(i) For conspicuous gallantry in saving life and property, or in preventing crime or arresting criminals, the risks incurred being estimated with due regard to the obligations and duties of the officer concerned.

(ii) A special distinguished record in police service or in the Central Police/Security Organisations.

(iii) Success in organising Police Service or the Units of Central Police/Security Organisations or in maintaining their organisations under special difficulties.

(iv) Special Service in dealing with serious or widespread outbreaks of crime or public disorder.

(v) Prolonged service, but only when distinguished by very exceptional ability and merit.

14. We are concerned here with sub-rule (i) which stipulates that medal shall be awarded for conspicuous gallantry in saving life and property, or in preventing crime or arresting criminals, the risks incurred being estimated with due regard to the obligations and duties of the officer concerned. It is thus clear that the award under this head is to be given for gallant action. Expression gallant and gallantry are defined in Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10th Edition (Revised) in the following manner:

Gallant /gal(e)nt/.adj.1 brave; heroic. 2/also galant/(of a man) charming; chivalrous. 3 archaic of fine appearance; grant. n./also galant/1 a man who is charmingly attentive to women. 2 archaic a dashing gentleman. v./also galant/archaic (of a man) be charmingly attentive to (a woman). - Derivatives gallantly adv. - Origin ME (in the sense `finely dressed): from Ofr. Galant , from galer `have fun, make a show, from gale `pleasure, rejoicing.

Gallantry .n.(pl. -ies) 1 courageous behaviour, especially in battle. 2 polite attention or respect given by men to women. (gallantries) actions or words used when paying such attention. Archaic sexual intrigue.

15. In our context it would mean brave/or heroic action. An Officer who shows courageous behaviour, performs a gallantry act.

16. We have already reproduced above Col. 20 of the recommendation for the award of this medal for gallantry. The heading of Col. 20 reads Brief description of the conspicuous gallant action on the part of the recommendee. As the award is to be given for gallantry, it is this column giving description for gallant action which would be of importance while deciding as to whether the award is to be conferred or not. It would be clear from the narration of the brief description action stated in para-20 that what is imputed on the respondent No. 4 is his courage and leadership in leading the team to nab dreaded wanted criminals Kripa Shankar and Preetam Singh and their gang hiding in a village near Halia, P.S. Lalganj, Distt. Mirjapur. It was clearly an act of bravery on the part of the leader of the team to take courage to go after the dreaded criminals with police party to nab them after receiving the information that those criminals were hiding in a particular place. The informer who had given the information had told the respondent No. 4 that they had gone for dinner in an unnumbered Indica Car together with an Ambassador car having red beacon light belonging to the Chairman, Zila Panchayat, Mirjapur and were to return by that time. Therefore, what was found, while conferring awards on the police officials including the respondent No. 4 that the police team led by the respondent No. 4 displayed exemplary gallantry and courage and the leadership of highest order in this remarkably successful operation. The kind of encounter which these officials had to face and where they exhibited their courage is further clear from citation dated 18.10.2002 by the President Secretariat while conferring the said award to the police officers:

Keeping some distance the party headed by Dr. Goswamy chased the Indica car and the Ambassador car was left little behind . Police tried to overtake the Indica car and signalled it to stop from behind, but the vehicle gained speed. When the police vehicle came parallel to the Indica car to overtake it, Dr. Goswamy shouted and told that they are police and asked them to stop the vehicle for checking. On hearing police, firing with automatic weapons started from the Indica car and Dr. Goswamy S.O. Ajai Singh and SI Ratan Singh took position inside the vehicle itself. Facing the burst fire, to save themselves, these personnel also opened fire. SO Ajai Singh was hit by bullets and fell down on the seat. SI Ratan Singh also shouted that he is going to die. Sh. K.P. Singh stopped the vehicle parallel to the Indica Car. K.P. Singh started heavy fire with his AK 47. Dr. Goswami also got down from the driving seat and crawling took position and fired from his carbine. Fire came from under the Indica car from hind and Shri K.P. Singh was also hit and was in pain. In the meantime firing also started from the Ambassador car and both the vehicles managed to escape. All of these personnel got hurt. Dr. Goswami driving the vehicle went to PS Lalganj to inform that and then reached Varanasi and took injured police personnel to Heritage Hospital where Ajai Singh was declared dead. Others were badly injured and were treated. In the exchange of fire, dreaded criminal Preetam Singh was also killed.

In this encounter, S/Shri Late Ajai Singh, SI, Ratan Singh, SI & Dr. G.K. Goswamy, ASP displayed conspicuous gallantry courage and devotion to duty of higher order.

17. It would be interesting to note at this stage that although the petitioner has tried to take mileage from the Magisterial inquiry i.e. report of Additional District Magistrate who conducted inquiry, the District Magistrate while forwarding this very report to the Principal Secretariat (Home) UP Governmentvide his covering letter dated 18.7.2001 has categorically mentioned as under:

In reference under question, Peetam Singh a dreaded criminal carrying cash reward of Rs. 10,000/- was killed and in which Dr. G.K. Goswamy, Astt. Superintendent of Police as a team leader exhibited excellent leadership, direction and gallantry for which he should be praised. Other officers and staff of his team also deserve to be appreciated.

18. Thus even the District Magistrate was of the opinion that the respondent No. 4 as a team leader exhibited excellent leadership, direction and gallantry for which he should be praised. It may be stated at this stage that the twist which is tried to be given by the petitioner to the Magisterial inquiry is of no consequence because the focus of inquiry as per the terms of reference, was to find out, as to whether the encounter in question was true and real encounter or it was fake encounter. Therefore, while conducting such an inquiry, Additional District Magistrate was not examining the role of the respondent No. 4 or the extent of injuries suffered by him. No doubt in the said inquiry there is a mention of serious injuries being suffered by some officers. However, the report cannot be read for the purpose of ascertaining the extent of injuries suffered by the respondent No. 4. That apart, having regard to the view we have taken above, namely, the award was not conferred upon the respondent No. 4 because of the injuries suffered by him but because of his bravery and leadership qualities, this argument of the petitioner is of no avail to him. It may also be noted at this stage that while commenting on weakness in planning, matter is examined from all together different angle, namely, Whether sufficient planning was made by Varanasi Police for arrest of wanted criminals. In any case, the Additional District Magistrate has concluded on this aspect by stating that under the leadership of the respondent No. 4, SHOs/Sub-Inspectors/Constables participated in the operation with sufficient number of automatic fire-arms. What is commented is that it would have been proper if the vehicles used by the Police party were equipped with mobile sets also. It would have facilitated contacting each other at the time of need and further that there should have been arrangements of temporary red/blue flash light, siren, sign board, loud hailer, etc. for its identification. However, that would not in any case dilute the courage and bravery shown by the respondent No. 4 in leading the team from the front. It may be noticed that the same Additional District Magistrate in the said inquiry report has recorded his conclusions by mentioning that incident was a real encounter and on a deadly attack on Police party by notorious criminals, in self defence the Police took retaliatory action. Thus it is not that when the police party was attacked, it retracted. Rather it accepted the challenge and took retaliatory action without caring for their life. Report also concludes that under the leadership of the respondent No. 4, efforts were made to arrest notorious criminals who had carried rewards on their heads. When we put the matter in the right perspective, it becomes unnecessary to examine the issue of seriousness of injuries suffered by the respondent No. 4. It seems the petitioner is obsessed with the idea that only those who suffer serious injuries are to be conferred the award and as if that is the only sine qua for proving gallant act. His outlook seems to be too narrow and, therefore, even when this aspect was argued by learned Counsel for the petitioner at length and even an attempt was also made to allege that there was fabrication of record and on the other hand the respondent No. 4 had given his version and strongly controverted the allegations of the petitioner, it may not be necessary for us to go into this aspect.

19. We are concerned with judicial review of the decision taken for honouring the respondent No. 4 with the Presidents Police Medal. It goes without saying that judicial review of such an act has to be on limited grounds as recognized by various judicial pronouncements. It is not for this Court to sit in appeal over the decision of the Competent/Executive Authority. We are only concerned with the decision making process.

20. From the material discussed above, it is clear that the decision has been taken keeping in view the guidelines suggested by the relevant Rules. We do not find any irrelevant material or irrelevant consideration creeping into the decision making process. In fact there are no allegations of mala fides in the petition. We also find that there was sufficient material before the decision making authorities to arrive at the conclusion that the respondent No. 4 exhibited gallantry. If on the basis of material before the Competent Authority, it comes to the conclusion that the respondent No. 4 is worthy of such an Award, the Court cannot go into the sufficiency of the said material. As we find that the decision of the respondent No. 1 is neither arbitrary nor mala fide and does not suffer from any legal infirmities, the present petition has to fail.

21. We may point out at this stage that the contention of the respondent No. 4 that the present petition is not bona fide is based on the allegations that he was posted as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Varanasi for a period from 20.9.1999 to 26.7.2001. Respondent No. 4 initiated strict action against criminals during his tenure. Petitioner kept meeting respondent No. 4 on and off in support of criminals, hoping to seek favour for them. But the respondent No. 4 never gave any encouragement whatsoever for his unethical requests. Rather he had sent a confidential report to the then District Magistrate, Varanasivide letter No. ST-ASP-Misc/2000 dated 5 June, 2000, against the activities of the petitioner as he had tried to help a few imprisoned criminals by trying to enter the jail. Consequently, the petitioner is prejudiced and bears a grudge against the respondent No. 4 because he during his tenure at Varanasi never supported his unethical requests. Due to this prejudice only the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition with the intention to harass and defame the respondent.

22. No doubt the petitioner has tried to dispel this argument by contending that these allegations have been proved to be false by CBI inquiry, fact remains that much before the incident of encounter in question, respondent No. 4 had made a complaint against the petitioner on 5.6.2000 and it is possible that due to this complaint the petitioner is nurturing a grudge against the respondent No. 4. Moreover it is also not denied that he had not filed any such PIL earlier which may give credence to the allegations of the respondent No. 4. In any case, we do not propose to pronounce on this issue conclusively as we have considered the writ petition on merits and find the same lacking in substance.

23. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

24. No costs.