Denying gallantry awards to deserving soldiers is akin to betrayal by the society which owes a debt of gratitude towards them, the Delhi High Court today said while setting aside the Centre's order not to give a medal to a CRPF personnel who sustained bullet injuries in an encounter with a dreaded Khalistani terrorist.
Noting that "a nation which honours the sacrifice and bravery honours itself", a bench of Justices Pradeep Nandrajog and Pratibha Rani said a brave soldier needs to be recognised for his commitment to serve the country with dignity.
"A brave soldier needs to be recognised for his commitment to serve the nation with dignity and honour. It would indeed be a betrayal by the society if a soldier deserving a gallantry is denied the same. A right created must require its due redemption," it said, adding, "It is not a medal alone. That apart, society owes a debt of gratitude to the brave."
The court, while quashing the July 15, 2014 order of the Centre denying award to petitioner Rajesh Shukla, referred to his claim for a gallantry award to the competent authority asking it to take into account recommendation by the then Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), who was a part of the encounter team, as well as the case diary of the 1992 events.
Referring to the SSP's recommendation, the bench noted that Shukla had engaged the terrorist in the encounter despite receiving four bullet injuries and forced then Deputy Chief of Khalistan Commando Force (Zaffarwal), Khajan Singh, to retreat into a house where he was cornered and killed by the forces.
It observed that as per the case diary, if the petitioner had not engaged the terrorist, he would have escaped and "undaunted" by the injuries Shukla continued to bravely fight.
"Such commitment by an armed officer who displays unwavering readiness in the hour of the need and who remains undeterred by the fear of losing his life while defending the nation against enemies is truly representative of a conspicuous devotion to duty," the bench said.
The encounter had taken place when the police team had gone to a village in Punjab to search for terrorists on the basis of a tip off, when they came under heavy fire.
Two terrorists were killed during the encounter and AK-47 rifles and stock bomb was recovered from them.
(Reopens LGD10)
While the matter was pending in the high court, the government had said that on the basis of material gathered, it was of the opinion that no case was made out to award Presidential Police Medal or Police Medal to Shukla.
The court disagreed with the government's view, saying it had "not kept in mind the distinction between performing acts of exceptional courage and exhibiting conspicuous devotion to duty".
It said that the government had treated the case as if Shukla was injured when the terrorist had indiscriminately fired.
"This is not so. The petitioner was injured when he engaged the terrorist whom the petitioner saw fleeing into the sugarcane fields. As the petitioner fired at the terrorist, the terrorist returned the fire. The petitioner suffered four bullet injuries," it noted.
"He did not relent. He continued to inch forward and fire at the terrorist who was forced to retreat. This aspect has been completely overlooked. The result was that the terrorist could not escape and was shot dead by the other members of the force," it said.
The court observed, "Even amidst uncertainty and doubts of whether they would live to see a new day, their respect for service and commitment to willingly support their comrades, should duty call is truly exemplary and distinguishes such officers from the ordinary.
"It is these officers who are indeed worthy of the highest regard, respect and honour and their brave and relentless efforts should never be forgotten."
The court directed the competent authority to separately consider whether the petitioner's acts "evinced exceptional courage/gallantry or disjunctively, exhibited conspicuous devotion to duty".
It said that a reasoned decision would be conveyed to him and if it is found that he showed gallantry or exhibited conspicuous devotion to duty, he be recommended for either a Presidential Police Medal or a Police Medal.
