A successor authority cannot review an approved out-of-turn promotion decision absent statutory power.

The applicant, Head Constable Mukesh Singh, participated in a police encounter on 10 March 2005 in which a notorious criminal, Hanumant alias Hanu, was killed.

A DCP, Special Cell, submitted a citation dated 6 June 2005 recommending out-of-turn promotion (“OTP”) for ASI Rajeev Kakkar to the rank of Sub-Inspector and for the applicant to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector.

The Incentive Committee recommended both promotions on 25 October 2005, and the recommendations were approved by the Commissioner of Police.

ASI Rajeev Kakkar was subsequently granted OTP to the rank of Sub-Inspector on 30 March 2006.

The applicant’s promotion was not implemented on the ground that vacancies within the five per cent OTP quota were unavailable, and his name was allegedly retained on a departmental waiting list.

He was later promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on the basis of regular seniority with effect from 2 June 2010.

The department subsequently placed his case before review Incentive Committees in May 2010.

Those committees concluded that the material did not establish exceptional gallantry beyond the normal discharge of duty and recommended rejection of his OTP claim.

His case was thereafter closed, particularly because he had already received regular promotion as ASI.

The rejection was communicated through the impugned speaking order dated 6 April 2016.

The applicant challenged that order under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking OTP as ASI from 30 March 2006, the date on which his teammate was promoted, together with notional seniority and other consequential benefits.

Whether the respondents could constitute a subsequent Incentive Committee and review or overturn the earlier recommendation for OTP approved by the Commissioner of Police on 25 October 2005?

Whether the applicant was entitled to treatment equivalent to that granted to his teammate, ASI Rajeev Kakkar, who participated in the same encounter and received OTP pursuant to the same recommendation?

Whether the applicant’s subsequent regular promotion as ASI justified closure or rejection of his pending OTP claim?

The Tribunal applied Rule 19(ii) of the Delhi Police (Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980, which permits OTP, subject to the prescribed five per cent ceiling, for police personnel displaying exceptional gallantry, devotion to duty, or outstanding achievement.

It also relied on the Delhi Police Standing Circular dated 24 April 2000, under which the decision of the Incentive Committee, once accepted by the Commissioner of Police, attains finality and cannot ordinarily be re-examined.

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law doctrine of functus officio, holding that an authority that has finally exercised its decision-making power cannot revisit the merits in the absence of statutory authority, fraud, misrepresentation, or other recognised grounds.

It further invoked Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, requiring similarly situated government servants to receive equal treatment.

The Tribunal relied upon Inspector Rahul Singh v. Delhi Police, Umesh Bharthwal v. Delhi Police, Head Constable Sukhbir Singh v. Delhi Police, and Akhileshwar Yadav v. Commissioner of Police, which were treated as supporting the invalidation of later review committees that reconsidered earlier approved OTP decisions.

The Tribunal found that the original Incentive Committee had positively recommended OTP for both the applicant and ASI Rajeev Kakkar on the basis of the same encounter, and that the recommendation had been approved by the competent authority, the Commissioner of Police.

Under the departmental circular and the doctrine of functus officio, that approval was treated as final on the merits.

The subsequent review committees therefore lacked authority to reassess whether the applicant’s conduct amounted to exceptional gallantry merely because the original promotion had not been implemented for want of vacancies.

The Tribunal also considered the applicant’s treatment vis-à-vis ASI Rajeev Kakkar.

Since both officers were recommended for OTP arising out of the same operation, granting OTP to Kakkar while denying it to the applicant was held to constitute hostile and invidious discrimination contrary to Articles 14 and 16.

The applicant’s later regular promotion as ASI could not extinguish the distinct benefit of OTP already approved in 2005, nor could it validate the department’s decision to close his file.

It directed the Commissioner of Police to consider and grant the applicant OTP to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector from 30 March 2006, the date on which his similarly situated teammate, ASI Rajeev Kakkar, was promoted to Sub-Inspector.

The applicant was also granted notional benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, but no arrears of higher wages, applying the principle of “no work, no pay.”

The exercise was directed to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

No order as to costs was made.