Naveen Kumar
Be it accepting bribes, beating up the public or sending lewd messages to women, cops get a suspension order and are still kept on the force. At the time when police brutality and manhandling citizens is still fresh in people’s mind after the horrendous Thoothukudi issue, one needs to ask if ‘suspension’ is the apt punishment.
The latest case in Telangana is one of an inspector from Special Branch who was suspended by the Hyderabad city police chief, Anjani Kumar on Tuesday morning.
“Inspector K Chander Kumar, working in the Special Branch, has been placed under suspension. His conduct has been improper with a lady. Any misconduct by an officer in uniform can’t be tolerated at all. Send whatsapp msg at 9490616555. Help us identify black sheeps in the police department” (sic), tweeted the police official.
A day earlier, an ACP level officer was suspended for his alleged involvement in settling land disputes. Orders were passed on late Monday night by TS DGP Mahender Reddy. “If it was a commoner caught under such circumstances, he’d have to face legal ramifications, vehicle seizures, court visits and hearing with fines and even possible jail time. How is it fair to have such vast difference between the punishments? Aren’t they supposed to be law enforcers themselves?,” Asked Rajesh Sahoo, an activist from Hyderabad.
Earlier, on-duty cops were found drunk after which Suryapet Superintendent of Police R. Bhaaskaran suspended them. The two police officials were identified as a home guard and a driver of Penpahad police station. Bhaaskaran caught the four police personnel off their guard when he visited the Penpahad police station around 12.30 a.m. When alcohol breath tests were conducted for the men in uniform at the police station itself, the results showed in the range of 39 mg/100 ml and 188 mg/100 ml.
When asked about the aftermath of suspension, an official on the basis of anonymity said that, “It depends on his rank. Common to all is that they have no authority, they cannot wear a uniform, they surrender their weapon, they don’t get a salary but they are paid a subsistence allowance, they cannot leave the headquarters without permission but attend office every day. In addition, subordinate officers can be attached to line and they attend the general parade in civies, standing separately.”
On June 21, hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) regarding police brutality during the lockdown, the Telangana High Court pointed out a series of discrepancies in the police’s counter-affidavit, asking the state police “to submit the injury reports of the injured persons, their statements, if any recorded by the police, and further to inform this court with regard to the progress made in the departmental enquiries, which have been initiated against the delinquent police personnel”.
Citing the case of Junaid, who was brutally attacked, allegedly by policeman of Hyderabad, K. Hanumanth Kumar, the court noted in its order that, “Obviously, a single injury to the right eye cannot cause an injury requiring 35 stitches, and a hairline fracture. Thus, it is obvious that the correct facts have not been mentioned in the counter-affidavit.”
Moreover, the court also noted that, “Although it is claimed that Mr. Hanumanth Kumar was suspended by order dated 29.04.2020, and a detailed enquiry has been ordered against him, neither the copy of suspension order, nor the further development in the departmental enquiry has been submitted along with the counter-affidavit.”
On May 24, an intern doctor has filed a complaint with the SHE Team on May 24, against a Hyderabad traffic cop, for sending messages over WhatsApp. The doctor, who works at the Maternity Hospital in Sultan Bazaar, alleged that she was stopped by the traffic police officer at the Musheerabad circle in the first week of April. The female doctor further said that she had handed over her mobile phone number to the police officer during the checking.
“Criminal complaints can be filed against the concerned officers for offences under the Indian Penal Code of 1860, but there is no mechanism for an independent investigation. As a result, police personnel often refuse to register first information reports against their colleagues. The safeguard under Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is also often misused. This section requires prior sanction from the concerned government when a public servant, which includes a police officer, is accused of any offence committed in the discharge of official duty,” said K. Pavan, an advocate from Secunderabad court.
As police department is a state subject under the Constitution, penalising errant police officers for disciplinary proceedings, suspension, termination or loss in payroll is provided under respective state enactments. However, the said outcomes are affected by the lack of independent and impartial oversight. Furthermore, most of the state enactments are based on the Police Act of 1861, a Victorian-era legislation, under which disciplining the police was not considered a priority.
