Govt was in loop on Pinki’s reinstatement : The Tribune India

Join Whatsapp Channel

Govt was in loop on Pinki’s reinstatement

CHANDIGARH: Contrary to the reports that the Punjab Government was caught unawares about the reinstatement of controversial ex-cop Gurmeet Singh Pinki and that it had to issue orders at midnight to revoke his reinstatement, it now transpires that the higher-ups in the Police and the state Home Department knew about the appeal filed by Pinki.

Govt was in loop on Pinki’s reinstatement

Pinki



Jupinderjit Singh

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 24

Contrary to the reports that the Punjab Government was caught unawares about the reinstatement of controversial ex-cop Gurmeet Singh Pinki and that it had to issue orders at midnight to revoke his reinstatement, it now transpires that the higher-ups in the Police and the state Home Department knew about the appeal filed by Pinki.

The office of the Director General of Police, Punjab, and the state Home and Justice Department knew about the appeal and had also exchanged correspondence on the issue.

On April 15, the Home Department sent a letter (memo no. 4/41/2015- 4G3) to Ludhiana DIG GS Dhillon asking him to comment on the appeal filed by Pinki. It mentioned his belt number and the address of his house at Chandigarh. On April 23, the DGP office wrote to the IG, Jalandhar, seeking a detailed report and comments on Pinki's appeal, his professional competence and service record.
 
The DGP office asked the DIG, Ludhiana, to furnish the report within 10 days. It also asked if the applicant (Pinki) had appealed earlier also. This is contrary to the stand taken by officials of the Police Department and the Home Department while talking to The Tribune and other media organisations. 
 
ADGP, Intelligence, Hardeep Dhillon and Principal Secretary, Home Affairs and Justice, Jagpal Sandhu had earlier told The Tribune that they did not know about the case.  “The file was handled at the lower level. We were not in the loop,” they said.
 
As per news reports quoting the IG, Jalandhar, and senior police officials, they came to know about the case on May 20. Confronted with some letters as evidence, Jagpal Sandhu said, “We received hundreds of such applications. These were sent to the officers concerned in routine. I have not seen the appeal. However, as the letter quoted by you says my office had sought comments from the DGP, it remains to be seen if any comments were received by my office from him or any other officer.”
 
DGP Sumedh Saini could not be contacted for his comments. ADGP Dhillon, who, as per a news report, was the first one to come to know about Pinki’s reinstatement, maintained he informed his seniors about it immediately. “My office doesn’t deal with the correspondence you are talking about,” he said.
 
The documents in the possession of The Tribune reveal that the state had several opportunities to dismiss the appeal at various junctures. The government had over six months to handle the appeal so as to avoid the present controversy. Pinki first filed the appeal with the DIG, Ludhiana, on November 15, 2014.
 
With DIG GS Dhillon issuing orders of his reinstatement on May 16, there seemed to be lot more in the case than what met the eye. Sources close to the DIG maintained he followed the police rules.
 
The seven-page order of the Ludhiana DIG GS Dhillon quotes law and rules to justify his orders. It read: “I have gone through the judgment of Justice Rakesh Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated February 2, 2013, in the case of HC Arora vs State of Punjab and others. It deals with the dismissal from service based upon conviction on a criminal charge and says: At the outset, we would like to observe that neither any provision of the Constitution nor any rule provides that on conviction in a criminal case, a government employee has to be dismissed from the service. No doubt rule 16.2 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, stipulates that an official convicted and sentenced to imprisonment on a criminal charge shall be dismissed. However, the second provision to this very rule gives discretion to the punishing authority to impose a lesser punishment, in an exceptional case involving manifestly extenuating circumstances.”
 
What they said earlier
"We did not know about the case. The file was handled at the lower level. We were not in the loop"  Hardeep Dhillon and Jagpal Sandhu, adgp, Intelligence, & Principal Secy, Home Affairs and Justice
 
Their version now
"We received hundreds of such applications. These were sent to the officers concerned in routine. As the letter quoted by you says my office had sought comments from the DGP, it remains to be seen if any comments were received by my office from him or any other officer" Jagpal Sandhu, Principal Secy, Home

Top News

Arvind Kejriwal to be produced before Delhi court today as 6-day ED custody ends

Excise policy case: Delhi court extends ED custody of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal till April 1

In his submissions, Kejriwal said, ‘I am named by 4 witnesse...

Delhi High Court dismisses PIL to remove Arvind Kejriwal from CM post after arrest

Delhi High Court dismisses PIL to remove Arvind Kejriwal from CM post after arrest

The bench refuses to comment on merits of the issue, saying ...

‘Unwarranted, unacceptable’: India on US remarks on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest

‘Unwarranted, unacceptable’: India on US remarks on Delhi CM Arvind Kejriwal’s arrest

MEA spokesperson says India is proud of its independent and ...

Bullying Congress culture, no wonder being rejected: PM Modi, backs senior lawyers who flagged attempts to undermine public trust in judiciary

Bullying Congress culture, no wonder being rejected: PM Modi

Backs senior lawyers who flagged attempts to undermine publi...

Gujarat court sentences former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt to 20 years in jail in 1996 drug case

Gujarat court sentences former IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt to 20 years in jail in 1996 drug case

Bhatt, who was sacked from the force in 2015, is already beh...


Cities

View All