IG sets aside ‘lenient’ orders passed by SSP, DIG against cop
- After Fali Nariman, former SC judge questions Lokpal selection process
- TRS wonât merge, Congress readies to walk alone in both Andhra and Bihar
- Bihar: Flanked by Paswans, Narendra Modi sells âN(Development)Aâ
- Nitin Gadkari's âproposalâ for Raj Thackeray: Donât put up candidates for LS polls
- CBI to look into DLF high-rise plan near Rashtrapati Bhavan
The constable, posted in motorcycle patrolling squad of PCR, was booked for rash driving.
Reversing the orders passed by UT SSP Naunihal Singh and DIG Alok Kumar in a departmental inquiry against a constable, the UT Police chief has awarded three times the same punishment (withholding of three increments) to the accused.
The "lenient" orders were set aside by Inspector General R P Upadhyaya in a recent order.
A constable of UT Police, Amit Kumar, posted in the motorcycle patrolling squad of the Police Control Room, was booked for rash driving and endangering the life of an individual. A regular departmental inquiry was initiated against him by the SSP on May 27, 2010.
The inquiry officer, Inspector Baljit Singh, submitted his report on May 19, 2011, and held the constable guilty.
In his order, SSP Naunihal Singh said after "agreeing with the findings of the inquiry officer, a show cause notice was issued to the Constable and dismissal of the constable was proposed". But after considering the reply submitted by the constable, the SSP took a "lenient view" and awarded him forfeiture of two years of service on May 11 last year with temporary effect.
The constable then appealed before DIG Alok Kumar. After considering the matter and hearing the accused, the DIG concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the decision of SSP. But the DIG instead further took a lenient view and reduced the constable's punishment to forfeiture of one year of service with temporary effect on September 4 last year.
Following this, the accused constable appealed before the IG. A show-cause notice was issued to him by the IG asking him to explain as to "why the punishment awarded by the SSP and further reduced by the DIG not be set aside and why he should not be awarded the punishment of forfeiture of three years of service for increments with permanent effect".
- Russia tightens grip in Crimea, West threatens ‘consequences’
- Heavy patrolling in Sector 23 after thief leaves daring note
- Difference of opinion between Patil and UT’s senior standing counsel led to his resignation
- Commissioner to look into shady land deals in 35 villages: High Court
- Class X maths exam easy for some, tough for others
- Panchkula MC approves budget of Rs 39 crore