Sting operation: Woman cop off the hook

With TV news channels going all out to get those exclusive stories in their effort to beat the competitor, a married woman sub-inspector of police in Meerut range was caught unawares in a sting operation while seeking bribe for ignoring an FIR.

With TV news channels going all out to get those exclusive stories in their effort to beat the competitor, a married woman sub-inspector of police in Meerut range was caught unawares in a sting operation while seeking bribe for ignoring an FIR.

HT Image

To show the world that corruption in police was intolerable, she was sacked by her boss. But, in the process, he goofed up. And it was the woman cop, who had the last laugh in the case. She was soon off the hook and would probably be calling the shots once again in some police station!

As it happened, the Star News channel, in one of its sting operations, targeted Simran Jeet Kaur earlier this year and people saw on TV how she demanded illegal gratification from some persons to ensure that those named in an FIR were not harassed by the police.

The sting operation upset her superiors, and they placed her under suspension the very next day. A preliminary investigation was also ordered, which found her guilty of demanding bribe. And, in a hurry to take punitive action, the Inspector General of Police (IGP), Meerut range, dismissed Kaur from police service.

But while doing so, the IGP did only half the job, which ultimately gave back Kaur her smiles. What wrong did the IGP do in issuing a dismissal letter to Kaur? He did not conduct a ‘departmental inquiry’ into the charges against her before passing the order.

The IGP’s stand, however, was he could dismiss Kaur merely on the basis of a preliminary investigation report and without holding a ‘departmental inquiry’ against her.

In support, he cited the ‘special powers’, which he enjoyed under Proviso (B) of Rule 8(2) of the UP Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. But was he right?

The question cropped up at the Allahabad High Court before Justice Arun Tandon as he took up Kaur’s writ plea against her dismissal. The argument of Kaur’s counsel, senior advocate UN Sharma, assisted by Shishir Tandon, was that the IGP was, of course, empowered to dismiss a cop under the aforesaid Proviso (B) without holding a ‘departmental inquiry’ into the charges levelled against him or her.

But this special power under Proviso (B), the counsel pointed out, cannot be exercised unless, as clearly stated by the aforesaid Proviso (B) itself, the dismissal order first records the “reasons” as to why it is not “reasonably practicable” to hold such ‘departmental inquiry’ into the charges slapped on the police official concerned.

In this case, however, while exercising his power to dismiss Kaur from police service merely on the basis of the preliminary investigation report against her, the IGP failed to record any “reasons” for having done away with the requirement of holding a ‘departmental inquiry’ against her.

To this plea, the reply of the government standing counsel was just moralistic rather than legal. Since, he pleaded, the TV news channel had telecast the episode depicting the involvement of the sub-inspector in a misconduct, it was appropriate that such police officers who “damaged the image of the police department at large” should not be permitted to continue in service, and so, the court should not interfere with the IGP’s order, dismissing Kaur from service.

But what is illegal is illegal and, therefore, unsustainable in the eye of law. So, Kaur emerged a winner at the High Court, as Justice Tandon ruled that her dismissal from service by the IGP without giving any “reasons” for dispensing with the requirement of holding a ‘departmental inquiry’ against her was illegal, violating what Proviso (B) aforesaid stipulated (2006(4) AWC 3270).

Accordingly, her dismissal from service was liable to be quashed. Of course, the police authorities would be at liberty to take a fresh decision in the matter in accordance with law, the judge ruled.