Home dept seeks inquiry against cops | mumbai | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Dec 03, 2016-Saturday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Home dept seeks inquiry against cops

mumbai Updated: Jun 26, 2010 02:00 IST
Shailendra Mohan
Shailendra Mohan
Hindustan Times
Highlight Story

Alleging irregularities in the tender process for the purchase of bomb suits, the home department has sought an inquiry against three senior policemen.

In March, Techno Trade Impex India Private Ltd had moved the Bombay High Court pleading that the state police had refused to accept the delivery of 82 bomb suits. The firm sought that they accept the consignment.

On July 10, P.K. Jain, principal secretary (Home), filed an affidavit in reply to the petition.

In his affidavit, Jain attached a letter he had written to the additional director general (Planning & Coordination) on February 2, 2009.

In his letter, Jain said, on January 28, 2009, seven firms were to demonstrate the effectiveness of their bomb suits, but only five actually did.

"The bomb suits displayed by Amini industries were also sought to be displayed by Shaneshwar Industrial Works and Techno Trade Impex India. All the suits were not displayed before the inspector general (Security) and deputy commissioner of police (Security). Despite this, it was shown as if all seven companies had shown their bomb suits,” the letter says. “This serious matter was not brought by members of technical team to the notice of IG and DCP (Security) and it was not reflected in the report.”

The letter seeks an explanation from Assistant Commissioner of police (Technical Branch) D.G. Bondre, Inspector (Bomb Detection and Disposal Branch) A.B. Naukudkar and Assistant Police Inspector (BDDS) Pandit, who were present for the demo. The letter alleged they had not brought the aforesaid fact before the superior officers.

A.L. Verma, who is currently officiating as additional director general (Planning & Coordination) after the retirement of Subhas Awte, refused comment saying he was unaware of the matter as he was only holding an additional charge.