HIMANGSHU SEKHAR JHA Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Rule is directed against an appellate order pass-ed by the Additional Inspector General of Police dated the August 31, 1976, re-primanding the petitioner after having found him guilty of charge 1 (a) of the charges. The petitioner was charged for dereliction of duty in that " (1) while he was posted as C. I. , Chandercierllgore, there was one case of dacoity and five cases of robbery in the area of the rail police falling within the area of C. I. , chandernagore and that (a) he contributed to the failure of control of railway crimes in the period from 12. 3. 73 to 14. 12. 73 by not organizing surveillance over and tracing out rail criminals in his area as enjoined in P. R. B. 189 (n)and 580 (b)". There are other charges marked as 1 (b) and 2 in respect whereof the Deputy Inspector general of Police who acted as the Enquiry Officer found charge 1 (b) as not proved and charge 2 as proved and he recommended punishment by reduction of pay by Rs. 25/- per month for one year. As already stated, the Additional inspector General of Police considered the appeal against the aforesaid order and held that the charge 1 (a) as aforesaid was proved and the appellant's failure to file personal diaries in time under charge 2 was only a formal one and the same by acceptance by the S. P. was condoned. Police Regulations Bengal 189 (n)is as follows : -

(2.) IT will appear from the report of the enquiry that there were several instances of offences on railways which took place within the jurisdiction of the police stations of which the petitioner was in charge. It has been further found that no action as enjoined by the aforesaid regulations was taken by the petitioner even though reports were repeated to the respective control rooms. Even so no steps as required under the aforesaid regulations were ever taken by the petitioner. He neither visited the place of occurrence except one nor took any action either by himself or through his officers in assisting the railway police in detecting the cases. Further he never cooperated with railway police or caused surveillance within his area in time for prevention of crimes.

(3.) THE appellate authority noted that the petitioner or his officers did not visit the houses and haunts of railway criminals nor made lists of railway criminals or arrange surveil-lance over them nor did he arrange traids or participate in any raid against rail criminals nor visit places of rail way occurrence of the several case of railway crimes. It was further held that the prime responsibility for control of rail crime is that of the G. R. P. and the initiative of prodding the district police officers for taking up their share of control of rail crime-should have come from them. It wais also found that while the petitioner was not conscientious enough to do his duty, the G. R, P. also did not do their share of duty and theirs is the lion's share. The crimes took place in their jurisdiction and they did not take any pains to control the crimes. If they did their home work in crime control, carefully investigated the earlier cases with the co-operation of the local police, the criminals would have been identified and then they could have put pressure on the delinquent and his officers to arrange surveillance over the criminals and the crimes mentioned in the charge could possibly have been averted. The appeal late authority found that there is a railway Intelligence Cell functioning in the C. I. D. which is responsible for taking action against railway criminals. This Intelligence cell did not take pro-per action in the matter. They did not supply any list of criminals to the C. I. or O. Cs at any stage. Furthermore, a meeting of the D. I. G. , Burdwan Range was called on 19. 7. 73 to discuss railway crime control measures in respect of the crimes between Konnagore and sheoraphully Railway Stations and it. that meeting a; team of three Inspectors were entrusted with the work of taking special measures against railway crimes in the entire railway line from Konna-gore railway station to burdwan railway station. The petitioner was not asked to attend this meeting. These circumstances, according to the appellate authority, extenuated his remissness to a very great extent and the charge loots most of its seriousness on this alleged remissness. In this view of the matter, lie only directed that the delinquent should be reprimanded.