IG sets aside ‘lenient’ orders passed by SSP,DIG against cop

The “lenient” orders were set aside by Inspector General R P Upadhyaya in a recent order.

A constable of UT Police,Amit Kumar,posted in the motorcycle patrolling squad of the Police Control Room,was booked for rash driving and endangering the life of an individual. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him by the SSP on May 27,2010.

The inquiry officer,Inspector Baljit Singh,submitted his report on May 19,2011,and held the constable guilty.

In his order,SSP Naunihal Singh said after “agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer,a show cause notice was issued to the Constable and dismissal of the constable was proposed”. But after considering the reply submitted by the constable,the SSP took a “lenient view” and awarded him forfeiture of two years of service on May 11 last year with temporary effect.

The constable then appealed before DIG Alok Kumar. After considering the matter and hearing the accused,the DIG concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of SSP. But the DIG instead further took a lenient view and reduced the constable’s punishment to forfeiture of one year of service with temporary effect on September 4 last year.

Following this,the accused constable appealed before the IG. A show-cause notice was issued to him by the IG asking him to explain as to “why the punishment awarded by the SSP and further reduced by the DIG not be set aside and why he should not be awarded the punishment of forfeiture of three years of service for increments with permanent effect”.

The order passed by the IG reads,“Merely because he (constable Amit Kumar) was acquitted from the court does not mean that he can seek exoneration from the departmental inquiry. He has assailed the notice mainly on ground that he was acquitted from the court. From perusal of the judgment,it is evident that he was acquitted as the complainant and the victim were declared hostile from the court.”

“I feel that a strict punishment should have been imposed upon the accused rather than taking a lenient view,” noted the IG,setting aside the orders passed by the SSP and DIG.

The Charges

Amit Kumar,a constable,while posted in PCR,on May 10,2010,left his duty for personal work without informing his senior officers. He told Constable Umesh Kumar,who was on duty with him,that he was going to drop a guest at his residence and will be back soon. But,while driving a private car,Amit hit a woman. After he was arrested and was made to undergo medical examination,the doctors at GMSH-16 confirmed that Amit was drunk. He was booked for rash driving and the case was heard in a trial court. The court acquitted Amit of all charges on March 3,2011,because the victim turned hostile.

My Express

My patient gave up sugar, thought jaggery was safer: Why her HbA1c jumped from 7.2% to 8.5%

Still the party of choice for Bengal’s Muslims — so why is Trinamool Congress uneasy?

Shashi Tharoor, chosen for Veer Savarkar award, says won’t accept; NGO organisers claim he knew in advance