JUDGMENT Sunil Ambwani, J.
1. Petitioner is at present posted as Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Kanpur Nagar. He joined the services on 16th January, 1984. In the year 1999, petitioner was posted at Fatehgarh. An office message was communicated to him on 27.10.1999 by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad for immediate rushing to Village Ishapur. Petitioner immediately rushed to the spot with Additional Police Force and was engaged in operation in which hardened criminal Nem Kumar alias Bilaiya was flushed out from inside a house where he had taken shelter and had opened fire. Petitioner sustained injuries in his forehead. He was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Farrukhabad where he was treated and lateron shifted to Priya Hospital, Kanpur.
2. The encounter was widely reported and that petitioner along with other Police personnels, engaged in the encounter, were recommended for awarding Police Medal for exhibiting extraordinary courage, gallantry and bravery. Sri Rajeev Krishna, Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh has also recommended and forwarded petitioner's for out of turn promotion. Vide notification dated 27.3.2002, petitioner was declared for award of Police Medal by the President's Secretariat for gallantry. Government Orders dated 3.2.1994 and 19.1.1995 provide for out of turn promotion to those Police Officers who show exemplary courage and bravery in performance of their duties.
3. By impugned order dated 1.3.2001, the Superintendent of Police (Establishment), U.P. had informed petitioner that the matter of his out of turn promotion vide Government Order dated 3.2.1994 along with other Police personnels, involved in the encounter, was considered by a Committee. The Committee considered all the documents and after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, refused to recommend petitioner and other Officers for out of turn promotion. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned communication/order dated 1.3.2001, as well as for directing the respondents to promote petitioner out of turn to the post of Inspector for showing extraordinary gallantry and courage in the encounter dated 27.10.1999.
4. I have heard Sri S.M. Haider Zaidi for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
5. For the reasons given below, this writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.
6. Learned Counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner sustained injuries on his forehead and neck. The Senior Superintendent of Police in his recommendation mentioned that petitioner has shown extra-ordinary courage and bravery and this fact needs no further enquiry inasmuch as on the same footing, petitioner and other Police Officers involved in the encounter of hardened criminal, were recommended for Police Medal for gallantry. Petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Krishna Kumar Pundir v. State of U.P., 2001 (3) AWC 2163.
7. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that a Committee of Senior Police Officers has been constituted to consider each and every case on its own merit. The Government Order dated 3.2.1994 provides for out of turn promotion to only such Constables, or Sub-Inspectors/Platoon Commanders of the Police who have show exemplary courage and bravery in the encounter with some notorious or hardened criminals or for showing courage and bravery in their arrest, or for taking risk in performance of their duties. The Committee has considered the merits of the present case and has given reasons for refusing out of turn promotion to the Police personnels, including petitioner, who were involved in the encounter. These reasons, according to the learned Standing Counsel, have been given on the basis of relevant materials available on record and that this Court cannot substitute its own opinion as an Appellate Authority or to review the order.
8. In the present case, the impugned order shows that the Committee found that under the leadership of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh; Superintendent of Police; four Circle Officers; three Sub-Inspectors and many Station Officers alongwith large number of Police and P.A.C. personnels were included. Out of this group, twenty four Officers were armed with modern and powerful weapons, viz., A.K.-47 Rifles and S.L.R's with they fired upon the criminals. In comparison of this heavy force and weapons, there were four criminals. Three of them made good their escape, and only one was shot dead from whom only a single barrel gun and a pistol were recovered. In the joint operation and firing, although some Police personnels received injuries but neither of them, either individually or collectively, demonstrated any such exemplary courage or bravery which may entitle them out of turn promotion.
9. I have gone through the documents, annexed to the writ petition, including the F.I.R., injury report and recommendation. Petitioner was only a member of Police party involved in the encounter. The First Information Report shows that he had fired four shots from his pistol. Hand grenades were thrown in the room in which Nem Kumar alias Bilaiya was hiding. He was armed only with a single barrel gun and a countrymade pistol which were recovered from the room where he was hiding. The operation, in general, was single sided affairs in which the Police party surrounded the criminals. The facts given in the F.I.R. and the recommendation does not show that petitioner showed any such bravery or courage or took initiative either on the direction of leader of the Police party, or on his own, in the operation. He may have sustained injury but that does not appear to have been caused in demonstration of some extra-ordinary part taken by petitioner in the operation, where three criminals escaped and one was killed, and thus, it cannot be said that any one, of them either individually or collectively, demonstrated any such exemplary courage or bravery. This Court while exercising powers of judicial review, cannot form a different opinion or sit in appeal over the order. It can only interfere where the Committee has not considered the case; relied upon some irrelevant materials or has failed to take into consideration the materials which were relevant to the matter. The fact that the petitioner was recommended for Police Medal for gallantry was one of the circumstance but that cannot be said to conclusive reason to arrive at a decision.
10. Gallantry has been defined as dashing bravery; showingly attentive behaviour to women; a compliment made to a woman flirting with her (New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary). The same dictionary defines bravery as courage, and courage has been defined as the capacity to meet danger without giving way to fear. The exemplary courage and bravery as such requires something more that being gallant. The award of Police Medal for gallantry may be one of the consideration for out of turn promotion on the ground of exemplary courage and bravery or taking risk in performance duties, but that, by itself, cannot be a conclusive proof to form an opinion for bravery and courage.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The writ petition is dismissed.