Making it clear that keeping a police officer on compulsory wait is not a punishment since it is considered period spent on duty, the Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the State government to give due weightage to the sentiments expressed by the court on the need to suspend a special Director General of Police (DGP) accused of having made sexual advances towards a woman Superintendent of Police (SP).
Justice N. Anand Venkatesh wondered how an investigating officer in the rank of Superintendent of Police would be able to interrogate a special DGP freely and fairly and without being intimidated psychologically. “This is where the suspension of A1 assumes significance. A1, coming with his official paraphernalia, even though he his kept under compulsory wait, will jeopardise the investigation,” the judge said.
“Placing an officer under compulsory wait does not attach any stigma to it and such compulsory wait is resorted to only in cases where a government servant is not able to be accommodated in a suitable post or vacancy … The government servant concerned will be entitled for all service benefits including allowances during this period of compulsory wait. It can never be construed as a punishment,” he added.
The observations were made in an interim order passed on a suo motu writ petition taken up by the court to monitor the criminal investigation being done in the case by the Crime Branch-Criminal Investigation Department (CB-CID) as well as an internal inquiry being conducted by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act of 2013.
For the present, the seriousness of the case could be assessed only on the prima facie material that had been collected so far. On perusing the Case Diary and also the status report filed by the CB-CID, “there are prima facie materials available,” the judge said. He pointed out that the court, too, had taken suo motu notice of the issue only because it involves public interest and the dignity of the police force.
He also recorded the submission of State Government Pleader V. Jayaprakash Narayanan, led by special senior counsel A.L. Somayaji, that the sentiments expressed by the court with respect to the need to suspend the special DGP forthwith would be considered seriously, and further development would be reported to the court on March 23, when an additional status report would also be filed.
Earlier, the investigating officer in the case appeared before the court and submitted a status report in a sealed cover. He said 68 witnesses had been examined and their statements recorded. The statements of the special DGP and a superintendent of police, who had reportedly waylaid the victim when she was on her way to lodge the complaint, were also recorded.
Meanwhile, another male Superintendent of Police who had supposedly spoken to the father-in-law of the victim officer and made a “feverish attempt” to compromise the issue was also summoned by the investigating officer and his statement was recorded, the court was told.
