Punjab and Haryana High Court has come down heavily on the Punjab state government for posting police officers, either convicted or facing serious charges in IPS cadre posts, and held that such practices erode the confidence of the people in the police administration apart from being an affront to the rule of law. The bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal pointed towards the arbitrariness in dealing with officers facing criminal cases and said that the government cannot act like an absolute despot at its whims and fancies by patronising certain officers while imparting a step-motherly treatment to others.
Also, it came to the notice of the court that the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Affairs, had supplied incomplete information to the court on affidavit, and has asked the officer to show cause why criminal proceedings for perjury should not be initiated against him.
Background
The petitioner who was suspended by SSP, reinstated by IG and then again suspended by SSP, came before the court against the second suspension and contended that there were several police officers facing serious charges and some of them even convicted, but continued in service. The court sought a response from Punjab’s Home Ministry seeking details of FIRs registered against all serving police officers in the State of Punjab including their nature and status.
Further, a similar report was also sought from Additional Chief Secretary of Home Department as the petitioner claimed that he earlier report did not make full disclosure of such officers. The court then asked the Additional Chief Secretary to ascertain if the factual aspects are correct and in a subsequent affidavit, it was ascertained by the court that in earlier reports, information was not completely disclosed. While the Additional Chief Secretary had taken the defence that he was given wrong information by officials, the court observed that this was a case of shooting the messenger and there was “stoic silence qua the beneficiaries of the said wrong information, at whose instance and to protect whom, wrong information was provided”.
Perjury
“The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs and Justice, Punjab should have taken due care and caution as it is expected from the administrative Head of the Department to disclose the entire information as had been sought by the Court,” said the court.
Commenting on the incomplete information provided in the affidavit, the court said, “Concealment or not disclosing the information sought, amounts to swearing a false affidavit. The filing of false affidavit has the tendency to subvert, obstruct, impede and interfere in the due course of judicial proceedings, which cannot be overlooked especially when the affidavit has been filed by a senior government officer. Besides, contempt of court, filing of a false affidavit, would amount to giving false evidence under Section 191 IPC and would be punishable under Section 193 IPC.”
The court said that before directing criminal proceedings for perjury, it deems it appropriate to issue the officer a notice, and asked the officer to show cause within 4 weeks why such proceedings should not be initiated against him.
Convicted/charged police officers
Getting back to the issue of officers charged with/convicted with offences still serving, the court took example of Rajinder Singh Sohal, posted as SSP of Gurdaspur district, who is convicted under many sections of IPC and was sentenced to 3 years in prison but since he went into appeal his sentence was stayed. However, his conviction has not been stayed, the court observed.
“The continuation of such an officer at the post of SSP, who is the district head of the police force, would erode the confidence of the people in the police administration apart from being an affront to the rule of law. Therefore, the competent authority should consider transferring him from the post forthwith,” the court directed.
It was further brought to the court’s notice that there are several other PPS officers, who have been posted as SSPs of various districts in violation of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 read with Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 and thus, the court impleaded Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs as respondent No.5 to assist the court to look into these apparent violations.
“It is apparent that there is arbitrariness in dealing with officers facing criminal cases which is the grouse of petitioner. In our system of governance administered by rule of law, the government cannot act like an absolute despot at its whims and fancies by patronizing certain officers while imparting a step-motherly treatment to others. It is, thus, the need of the hour to put in place a proper structure,” said the court.
The court also appointed Advocate Kshitij Sharma as amicus curiae in the case.
The court was also informed that the State had decided to constitute a committee to frame a policy with regard to action to be taken in those cases where the police officers have been convicted. The court directed the said committee to examine the issue of officers against whom FIRs have been registered and trials are pending as there has to be uniformity in dealing with such cases on the basis of their nature and gravity.
The court also directed that until the Committee arrives at a decision:
·no police officer who is charge-sheeted and / or convicted in a criminal case involving moral turpitude, shall remain posted at a post having public dealing
·they shall not be assigned investigation, either as investigating officer or in a supervisory capacity
·they shall not be posted in the vigilance bureau
·They shall not be posted in the district where their criminal case is being tried
The court will consider the petitioner’s interim relief at the next hearing date, April 28 and also sought status report from the Committee on that date.
The complete order may be read here:
Related:
Punjab & Haryana HC says interfaith marriage invalid as Muslim woman did not convert
Mehmood Pracha raids: Delhi court asks police how they plan to protect lawyer-client privilege
Information about accused cannot be leaked to any third party: Karnataka HC