In face-off with govt, Gujarat top cop slams latest notice
- Why Germanwings flight A320 might have crashed over the French Alps
- Indian Navy surveillance aircraft crashes in Goa; two officers missing
- Section 66A: 21 individuals whose petitions changed the system
- Government is willing to compromise on land bill: Venkaiah Naidu
- A little reminder: No one in House debated Section 66A, Congress brought it and BJP backed it
The state government had sent him a showcause notice for "irregularities" during his stint in Rajkot where he served for three years as DIG (Armed Units) before being shifted as DIG (Armed Units) in Vadodara.
The notice was sent to Sharma after additional DGP (Armed Units) Tirthraj submitted a report to the state's Home Department recently, stating that the DIG had handed cash rewards to a few inspectors and SRP personnel "without following administrative procedures".
Principal Secretary (Home) S K Nanda said, "We have sent him a notice regarding the irregularities during his tenure as DIG (Armed Units)".
Sharma has 15 days to reply. When contacted, he said, "I felt SRP personnel who worked well should be rewarded, so I gave them Rs 100 each in cash. How does that become a misconduct? A petty amount of Rs 100 was given to these personnel as per SRP rules to motivate them."
Sharma said he had spent a total of Rs 15,000 in three years (2009 to 2012) in giving 50 cash rewards to SRPF personnel.
"I have administrative powers as a DIG to appreciate good work of my junior officers. So, where is the administrative lapse here?" he added.
A few months ago, the state home department had served Sharma a notice for asking his head clerk to receive all government communication. Sharma has already replied.
Sharma has been locked in a confrontation with the state government ever since he submitted CDs allegedly containing mobile phone call records of various BJP leaders and VHP members during the 2002 riots.
He was charged with misconduct by state government for not submitting this evidence to police after his transfer. The officer approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in September 2011, which ruled in his favour. In his petition before CAT, Sharma had contended he was being victimised for deposing before the Nanavati Commission.