1. Heard Ms. Vyoma Jhaveri for Mr. Dipen Desai learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.K.L.Pandya learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State authorities. Respondent no.
6 is served and his affidavit-in-reply dated 19.1.2000 is on record.
2. The petitioner, who was working as Police Inspector at the relevant time, has challenged the action of the authorities of withdrawing the awards/ rewards given to him for his meritorious service. The foundation of this petition is the malafide alleged against Mr.P.P.Agja, I.P.S., who at the relevant time was working as the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and who is joined as Respondent No:6 in the petition.
3. Having heard both the learned advocates and gone through the record, the facts which emerge can be summarised in brief, as under. The petitioner at the relevant time was working as Police Inspector under the administrative control of District Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar. Bhavnagar District falls under Junagadh Range in police hierarchy and the said Range is headed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. By the order dated 4.9.1999 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Junagadh Range, Junagadh(Annexure-A), number of awards/rewards were withdrawn from the petitioner, which were earlier given to him by the competent authority, considering his good performance as Police Officer. Based on the said order, consequential order dated 10.9.1999 was passed by the District Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar (Annexure-B).
One more consequential order came to be passed by the District Superintendent of Police Bhavnagar on 22.9.1999, which was placed on record of the petition as Annexure-F, by amendment, at the time of admission hearing of the petition. Thus, these three orders, i.e. order dated 4.9.1999 Annexure-A, order dated 10.9.1999 Annexure-B and order dated 22.9.1999 Annexure-F to the petition, are under challenge in this petition. The operation of these three orders was stayed by this court vide order dated 1.12.1999, which is subsequently confirmed vide order dated 14.12.1999, and thus, none of these three orders are implemented. It is reported that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation by this time.
4. The case of the petitioner is that, after joining the service as Police Sub Inspector in the year 1978, the petitioner had performed his duty with all devotion and dedication and considering his outstanding performance, the competent authority had awarded awards/rewards to him from time to time and his Annual Confidential Reports were also outstanding. While the petitioner was working at Bhavnagar, one Mr.P.P.Agja,(Respondent:6), who was working as Deputy Inspector General of Police, Junagadh Range, at Junagadh, under whose administrative control the District Superintendent of Police Bhavnagar functions, had some grudge against the petitioner. The said officer had developed bias against the petitioner and therefore, he was creating all sorts of hurdles in the service of petitioner. At that juncture, the District Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar had sent proposal to the Director General of Police, through D.I.G., Junagadh, for considering the name of the petitioner for recommendation for President's medal. From that stage, Respondent No:6 started writing to the authorities, not to consider the case of the petitioner for President's medal. Not only, he did not approve that proposal of District Superintendent of Police, Bhavnagar, for which, he can be said to be competent considering this position, but he further wrote letter on 19.2.1997 to his higher authorities how the work of petitioner was not satisfactory according to him. Even this action can be said to be well within his competence. However soon after writing the said letter dated 19.2.1997, Respondent No:6 came to be transferred from the post of D.I.G. Junagadh Range to D.I.G. Rajkot Range and on 22.2.1997 he left the charge. Whether after hearing about his transfer and before leaving the charge, he wrote letter dated 19.2.1997 is an aspect for which no material is on record and to that extent there is a gray area, but in any case, couple of days before leaving the charge of the post of D.I.G., Junagadh Range, he had written to his higher authorities, in effect, complaining against the petitioner.
5. After leaving the charge of the post of D.I.G. Junagadh, he entered in correspondence with his Successors-in-office D.I.G. Junagadh, which is evident from letters written to and by Mr.A.I.Saiyed and Mr.Rajan Priyadarshi. Mr. Saiyed was holding the post of D.I.G., Junqgadh Range from 22.2.1997 to 18.5.1998 and Mr. Rajan Priyadarshi was in that office from 19.5.1998 to 1.12.1999, as indicated by learned AGP. Thus, Respondent No:6 was following up the issue of withdrawal of the awards given to the petitioner with the the office of DIG, Junagadh, with which, he had no concern while sitting as DIG, Rajkot or as DIG, Border Range at Bhuj. The above referred correspondence, which has come on record substantiates the allegations of malafide made by the petitioner against respondent no. 6. In this regard, reference can be made to letters dated 19.2.1997, 19.5.1997, 29.5.1997, 2.3.1998, 23.3.1998, 11.7.1998 and 14.6.1999. Conjoint reading of these letters, makes it clear that Mr.A.I.Saiyed and Mr Rajan Priyadarshi, both, successors-in-office as D.I.G. Junagadh, were of the opinion that it would be highly demoralizing for police force as a whole, if the awards/rewards once given to an officer is taken back. In their opinion, the same was illegal, atleast improper. Inspite of that, on the instance of Respondent No:6 who was a senior officer, ultimately the impugned order came to be passed. Be it noted that respondent no. 6 was senior by years to his successor-in-office when the impugned order was passed. Thus, Respondent No:6, a senior I.P.S. officer in the rank of D.I.G., who was after one police inspector- the petitioner, successfully arm twisted his junior colleague to humiliate the said Police Inspector and ultimately, the impugned orders came to be passed.
6. There is one more dimension which fortifies the allegation of malafide made by the petitioner against Respondent No:6. Respondent No:6, while holding the post of DIG, Junagadh, had occasion to have a 'say' in the Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner. The DSP had written Excellent- Annual Confidential Report of the petitioner, as Reporting Officer, for the year 1996-97, however, the Respondent No:6 as Reviewing Officer- made adverse entries in the said Annual Confidential Report. The said action was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by a petition being Special Civil Application No. 3280/1998. In the said petition, the present Respondent No:6 was Respondent no. 3. The said petition was allowed by this Court by judgment dated 25.6.1998, which is on record of this petition aS Annexure-C. When the said petition was allowed, present Respondent No:6 was holding the post of DIG, Junagadh and therefore a situation got created where Respondent No:6 would have the grievance of facing a defeat at the hands of one Police Inspector. In parallel proceedings, when DSP had recommended the case of the petitioner for consideration for President's medal, co- incidentally, in the said week, Respondent No:6 had to leave the charge of the post of DIG, Junagadh and could only write one letter dated 19.2.1997. Thereafter, he was DIG- Rajkot and DIG-Boarder Range, at Bhuj and none of these two offices are superior to the office of DIG Junagadh in police hierarchy. However, taking advantage of his upper hand as a senior officer, he entered in correspondence and followed up the matter, details of which are reflected herein above, and got awards/rewards withdrawn by the impugned order. Inspite of the opinion of other DIGs that striping off the police officials; of awards/ rewards already given to them; would lead to discontent in the police force, which would be unhealthy for the organization as a whole and further; that applying the same yardstick, from other police officials also awards will have to be taken back, which again, would be improper, both these factors are overruled and the impugned order is got passed. Even the copy of the impugned order, which is passed by DIG, Junagadh, is marked to Respondent No:6 and the same is stated to be in continuation of his Demi Official letter. Further, by the impugned order, awards of other employees are also withdrawn which is not under challenge in this petition and need not be interfered with, but it is noted that so far those employees are concerned, they have suffered only because the present petitioner was targeted by the Respondent No:6.
7. The grievance is voiced by many, about refraining from demoralizing police force. This is a classic example where a Police Inspector, for the personal bias of a senior police officer is humiliated, along with other police officials, by striping them off; of their awards/ rewards. The question in such cases is not of few hundred or thousand rupees which are given to a police officer, it is a recognition which is conferred on him. It is this appreciation and recognition, which is of more relevance for an officer in the uniform. Keeping this in mind, if the action of respondent authorities, more particularly of Respondent No:6 is examined, this Court finds substantial substance in the grievance voiced by the petitioner that he was arbitrarily and malafide stripped off, of his awards and rewards at the say of Respondent No:6. The affidavit-in- reply filed by Respondent No:6 if viewed closely, reveals that he has tried to justify how those many awards could not have been given to the petitioner. This Court is not going into that arithmetic calculation of awards/rewards having been given by the DSP, Bhavnagar to the petitioner. The issue involved in the matter is, that even after leaving the post of DIG, Junagadh Range, what made Respondent No:6 to repeatedly write to withdraw awards/ rewards granted to the petitioner. The affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of Respondent No:6 further substantiates the say of the petitioner. Under these circumstances the petition deserves to be allowed.
8. Since the action of the respondent authorities is not only illegal and arbitrary but is held to be malafide, while allowing the petition, cost is also required to be imposed. So far as arbitrariness in the action of the authorities is concerned, it is attributable to the respondent authorities as institute, but so far as malafide is concerned, it is attributable to Respondent No:6 personally. What has made the action impugned in this petition vulnerable is the malafides and then comes arbitrariness. Therefore, in my view, it would be proper to impose cost against Respondent No:6 and not against the Government as an institute.
9. For the reasons recorded above, I arrive at the judgment and pass order, as under.
I) The impugned orders, dated 4.9.1999 Annexure-A, dated 10.9.1999 Annexure-B and dated 22.9.1999 Annexure-F, are held to be illegal, arbitrary and a consequence of malafide exercise of power by Respondent No:6 and are quashed and set aside.
II) The petitioner is entitled to get costs from Respondent No:6. The costs is quantified to be Rs. 15,000 (Rupees fifteen thousand). Respondent No:6 is directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- to the petitioner within a period of two months from today.
Rule is made absolute.
[PARESH UPADHYAY, J.] mandora/