ORDER

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated

23.05.2013 (Annexure-P/7) passed by the respondent No.2. Petitioner is one of the officers who participated in the encounter of a dacoit on 05.02.2012. The factum of encounter was found to be true in a Magisterial enquiry conducted in the month of May, 2012. On the basis of participation of the petitioner in an act of bravery, his case was recommended for out of turn promotion by respondent No.3. On the recommendation made by the respondent No.3, initially the respondent No.2 did not take any action and ultimately, vide order dated 23.05.2013, the respondent No.2 returned the recommendations and rejected the claim of the petitioner for out of turn promotion on the premise that Rule 70-A of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') has been repealed w.e.f. 11.09.2012. The petitioner assailed the conduct of respondent No.2 in W.P. No.6890/2013 but the same was withdrawn with liberty to assail the order dated 23.05.2013 and that is how the present writ petition came to be filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the act of bravery took place on 05.02.2012 i.e., much prior to the date of repeal of Section 70-A of the Act and the said repeal cannot be given effect with retrospective effect thereby nullifying the recommendation in favour of the petitioner for out of turn promotion.

A perusal of the order dated 23.05.2013 would show that the same is non-speaking and has been passed only on the ground that Rule 70-A of the Act has been repealed w.e.f. 11.09.2012, and therefore, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered. In my considered opinion, the impugned order is totally non-speaking. The claim of the petitioner had already been recommended by the respondent No.3. The competent authority has not adverted to the applicability of Rule 70-A of the Act at the time when the incident took place. Since, the order is totally non-speaking, therefore, the order is set aside on this very sole ground, thereby giving liberty to the competent authority to revisit the issue again in the light of facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner would also be at liberty to supplement his claim by way of moving any fresh representation before the competent authority/respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is expected to take up the issue at the earliest and decide the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of attending facts and circumstances of the case. Let the final decision be taken by the respondent No.2 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order passed today.

With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy, as per rules.

(RAJ MOHAN SINGH)

JUDGE

Priya.P