Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the Amarinder Singh government to ensure that no police officer who has been charge-sheeted or convicted for moral turpitude remains on a post that involves dealing with the public.
The decision is likely to lead to a flurry of transfers in the Punjab Police.
The court has also directed the government to make sure that the tainted officers are not assigned any investigation or posted in the vigilance bureau. Furthermore, the officers should also not be posted in the district where their criminal case is being tried.
The order came Monday when a single-judge bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal took up a petition filed by a dismissed police officer, Surjit Singh, who challenged his release from the force alleging arbitrariness. He submitted that there are other convicted police officers in Punjab Police who are continuing in service even as he has been fired over an FIR.
During the hearing, the court also issued a show cause notice to the state’s additional chief secretary home for providing wrong information to the court.
The home secretary, Anurag Aggarwal, had been asked to submit a list of all the tainted officers in Punjab but the court found that the list provided was incomplete, with names of several such officers left out.
Aggarwal has now been asked to explain why there should not be a case of perjury against him for providing an incomplete list to the court.
The court also asked the Government of India to look into the alleged violation of Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules by Punjab in posting of Punjab Police Service (PPS) officers on IPS cadre posts, including as Senior Superintendents of Police (SSPs) of districts. The Punjab government has also been asked to explain the violations.
Also read: Punjab & Haryana HC orders probe into alleged custodial torture of activist Shiv Kumar
Arbitrariness is apparent, says court
In his petition, Surjit Singh has contended that after an FIR was registered against him, he was dismissed from service by an SSP but was reinstated by the Inspector General. Despite his reinstatement, the SSP dismissed him again in June 2020.
The court in its observations said, “It is apparent that there is arbitrariness in dealing with officers facing criminal cases which is the grouse of the 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 added, “It is, thus, the need of the hour to put in place a proper structure.”
‘A case of shooting the messenger’
In September last year, the court had asked Punjab to file an affidavit giving details of the FIRs registered against all serving police officers in the state, including their nature, status and current posting.
The first list was submitted to the court by a deputy secretary of the home department in October, but it was alleged to be incomplete. Then the additional chief secretary (ACS), home, was asked to submit a list. This was done in December. Still unsatisfied, the court asked the official to personally ensure that the list is complete and correct.
In February, the ACS admitted in the court that the list submitted by his office in December was false.
Responding to his “candid admission”, the court then noted, “Justification rendered thereto is that the deponent was misled into deposing wrongly based on wrong/filtered information provided by certain erring officials, against whom, it is stated that disciplinary action is being initiated in accordance with law.”
It added, “However, what is rather intriguing is that it is seemingly a case of shooting the messenger. The person who acted merely as Postman to supply the information is being proceeded against, while there is stoic silence qua the beneficiaries of the said wrong information, at whose instance and to protect whom, wrong information was provided.”
In his Monday order, Justice Anupinder Grewal said, “It is apparent that the information as sought by this Court was not forthcoming and several opportunities were accorded to the respondents to file affidavits, setting out the required information.”
The ACS home “should have taken due care and caution as it is expected from the administrative Head of the Department to disclose the entire information…”
The court has now also appointed advocate Kshitij Sharma as the amicus curiae (friend of the court) in the case.
Also read: This is why Indian Mujahideen’s Ariz Khan was convicted for inspector’s murder at Batla House