Can Cop's Life-Threatening Rescue Operation Be Dismissed As Routine Police Duty? MP High Court Explains

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has clarified that a rescue by a police officer in a life-threatening operation cannot be dismissed as a standard discharge of his everyday obligations to deny out-of-turn promotion. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 210]The bench of Justice Vivek Kumar Singh elucidated that the said police officer went beyond the call of duty to save two people stuck in an overload truck at the end of a 200-feet gorge, by suspending himself on a mere rope in darkness, which it termed as an act of "extraordinary bravery". The bench highlighted:"Had the petitioner not intervened with such sheer presence of mind and courage, the truck would have inevitably plunged onto the active lower side of the road triggering a catastrophic mass disaster taking human life. Such a selfless, high-risk intervention flawlessly satisfies the threshold of conspicuous gallantry and exceptional merit contemplated under Regulation 70-A". The bench noted that Regulation 70A of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, which governs out-of-turn promotion, is a special exception and is intended to "recognize, reward and permanently give incentive to such acts which are of extraordinary valour, extreme presence of mind and professional excellence". BackgroundThe petitioner was serving as a Sub Inspector and Station House Officer at Simrol in Indore District in 2004. On April 22, 2004, a truck loaded with bricks lost control, about 25 kms from Indore, and plunged into a deep valley. The vehicle became suspended over a 200-foot gorge after being caught by the tree. The truck driver and helper were trapped inside and were calling for help. Upon receiving the information, the petitioner rushed to the spot and attempted to coordinate rescue operations. However, the professional crane operators refused to descend into the gorge because of the extreme risk involved. The petitioner, therefore, tied himself to a rope and descended into the valley, risking his life, and rescued both people. The petitioner was thereafter honoured by the Local Sarpanch, appreciated by the Collector and recommended by the Superintendent of Police for put-of-turn promotion.Despite recommendations from senior officers, the Screening Committee rejected the proposal on March 31, 2025 and instead sanctioned a reward of ₹5,000. The petitioner challenged this decision before the High Court in 2011. The Court had set aside the rejection for being cryptic and a non-speaking order and directed reconsideration of the claim. The Screening Committee again rejected the claim on December 28, 2012, leading to this petition. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the State had itself acknowledged his courage by granting him a cash reward, yet denied him the out-of-turn promotion by simultaneously describing the same as ordinary duty. The State opposed the petition, contending that the out-of-turn promotion is not a matter of right and is dependent on subjective satisfaction of the competent authority under Regulation 70A. The bench, after examining the facts, observed that the Screening Committee completely failed to apply the statutory parameters prescribed under Regulation 70A. The bench observed, "The Regulation demands an objective assessment. It requires the screening committee to meticulously evaluate whether an officer's conduct was merely a standard discharge of his everyday obligations or whether it crossed the threshold into an act of exceptional bravery or is merely a routine police duty". The court further observed that a routine police response in such circumstances would ordinarily involve securing the area, regulating traffic and requisitioning specialised rescue personnel. The bench emphasized that the fact that a professional crane operator refused to descend into the gorge itself demonstrated the extraordinary danger involved.The bench also observed that the decision-making process was internally contradictory. The bench emphasized that while the authorities considered the petitioner's conduct to be sufficiently courageous to justify a cash reward, they simultaneously classified the same as routine duty to deny promotion. Holding such reasoning as unsustainable, the court stated:"The respondents cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. On one hand, the Committee found the petitioner's act sufficiently courageous to warrant a special cash reward of Rs. 5,000/-. On the other hand, while considering Regulation 70-A, they downgraded the very same act to a routine discharge of duty. The State cannot be permitted to approbate the bravery for a cash reward and reprobate the same bravery to deny an out-of-turn promotion. For this reason, also,the findings arrived at by the committee are perverse". Thus, the bench disposed of the petition with directions to the State to grant the benefit of out-of-turn promotion to the post of Inspector retrospectively. Case Title: Indramani Patel v State of Madhya Pradesh, WP-9716-2017Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 210For Petitioner: ...

Can Cop's Life-Threatening Rescue Operation Be Dismissed As Routine Police Duty? MP High Court Explains

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

Can Cop's Life-Threatening Rescue Operation Be Dismissed As Routine Police Duty? MP High Court Explains

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Jayanti Pahwa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers