Ghaziabad police introduces tenure limits for cops
Ghaziabad: To ensure fairness and transparency in duties, Ghaziabad police commissioner J Ravinder Goud has directed to fix a maximum period of duty for sub-inspectors, head constables, and constables in three zones of the Commissionerate.
Since his joining as the commissioner of police on April 17, Goud has rolled out directions for 'citizen-centric' policing. Notably, the Ghaziabad Commissionerate is divided into three zones – city, trans-Hindon and rural – each headed by a deputy commissioner of police (DCP).
The latest directions state that a police sub-inspector will serve a maximum period of two years in a zone in the district, and head-constables a maximum duty period of four years in the city zone and three years each in rural and trans-Hindon zones. Likewise, a constable can perform duties for a maximum five years in a zone.
'It has come to light that many people were stationed in a particular area for many years, and such instances could give way to misuse of power while others served in remote locations. Further, every personnel should also get the opportunity to work at different places in the district. So, the arrangement was chalked out,' said DCP (city zone) Rajesh Kumar.
Officers said that fixing the duty limit was based on criteria.
'In a district, a sub-inspector is allowed to serve a maximum period of six years. Likewise, the maximum period for head constables in a district is 10 years and 15 years in case of constables. So, the new arrangement was chalked out while keeping in mind the maximum period in a district. On this basis, the maximum serving period in a zone was fixed,' the DCP added.
Further, in line with citizen-centric policing, about 90 police personnel of different ranks were removed from active duties in the three zones and sent to police lines. These include about 44 from rural zone, and 14 from city zone besides others in the trans-Hindon zone.
Officers said that the new CP got conducted an internal inquiry which highlighted a 'negative' image of several personnel.
'Some of these personnel were not having a proper public image, while some had complaints of alcohol and laxity at work, and some even had complaints of corrupt practices. So, such personnel were identified and sent to the police line from all three zones,' the officer added.
A series of latest measures taken up so far since Goud's joining include doorstep delivery of FIRs to the house of the complainants, and forbidding traffic head-constables to issue challans.
As regards the cross-FIR, it has been directed that any cross-FIR complaints will be thoroughly inquired into by a different police circle, and, thereafter, it would require approval of senior officers for registration of the FIR.
Likewise, removal or addition of names of suspects or addition/deletion of sections of the IPC/BNS during case investigation shall also require approval of DCPs for action under four categories of serious crime cases and that of ACPs in other cases.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
32 minutes ago
- Indian Express
‘Law not a toy to be played with': Karnataka HC quashes case against man accused of abducting neighbour's cat
In an unusual turn of events, a pet cat named Daisy was the subject of criminal proceedings challenged before the Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, with the judge remarking that the pet seemed to have 'driven everyone crazy'. The court subsequently quashed the case against a person who was accused of 'kidnapping' his neighbour's pet cat. Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the police deserved stern admonishment in this case, stating, 'Law is a solemn instrument and not a toy to be played at the altar of personal pique.' The defendant in the case had filed a complaint in 2022 against a person in the adjacent apartment complex, alleging that her cat Daisy had been kidnapped and confined, causing stress and emotional trauma to the complainant. The police subsequently filed a chargesheet under Indian Penal Code (IPC) provisions relating to intentional insult, intimidation, and insult to a woman's modesty. The accused petitioner's counsel argued that the cat could have jumped from house to house through the windows and might have gone to another place after getting into the petitioner's house, as it had not stayed there. The CCTV footage also demonstrated the cat jumping between windows. When the woman complainant had enquired about the cat, the accused questioned why he would keep her cat in his home. The counsel for the accused also raised the question of how the alleged offences could arise from a missing cat. The court noted that as per the Additional State Public Prosecutor, the complainant had not appeared before the court to answer questions, and it seemed to be a frivolous case. The bench stated, 'It shocks the conscience of the court as to how the jurisdictional police could have registered the complaint, as there is no offence indicated in the complaint, except missing cat and alleged wrongful custody of the cat in the house of the accused…' 'The entire police machinery gets involved in the case of a missing cat, records statements of neighbours, sees CCTV footage and finds nothing, but files a chargesheet dropping the offences under sections 428 and 429 (mischief by killing or maiming animal) of the IPC, but retaining the offences under sections 504, 506 and 509…,' it added. The judge observed that the chargesheet contained 'retrospective embellishments' of hurling abuses, which was not in the complaint, stating, 'The cat named Daisy appears to have driven everyone crazy and even the criminal justice system. The police ought not to have entertained the complaint, which did not indicate any cognisable offence at the outset. As a matter of fact, the complaint does not even indicate a non-cognisable offence. But the police entertained the complaint ostensibly, for extraneous reasons.'
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Agra Man Murdered For Voting For ‘Wrong Neta'. His Killers Jailed For...
Last Updated: The incident took place in Ladam Mankeda village which falls under the Malpura police limits. Nearly two decades after a brutal murder over a local election dispute, a court in Agra has sentenced six men to life imprisonment. The case dates back to August 23, 2005, when Dharampal Singh, a 35-year-old villager from Ladam Mankeda under Malpura police station limits, was killed for refusing to vote for a particular panchayat candidate. According to a Times of India report, seven men were initially accused in the case: Jitendra Singh, Bablu Singh, Pawan Singh, Sattoo Singh, Girraj Singh, Govind Singh and Balvir Singh. One of them, Sattoo Singh, died during the trial in 2006. The court has now found the remaining six guilty of Dharampal's murder. Dharampal and his brother Dharamveer Singh had allegedly declined to support the candidate backed by the accused. 'They tried to force us to vote for their nominee, but we declined. That angered them," Dharamveer told the police during the investigation. The next day, police registered a case under relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. All seven accused were arrested on September 15, 2005. Based on Bablu Singh's statement, a country-made .315 bore gun and two live bullets were recovered from a field the following day. After years of trial, the verdict was delivered by Additional District and Sessions Judge Rajendra Prasad. All six convicts—Jitendra, Bablu, Pawan, Girraj, Govind and Balvir—have been sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. Each was also fined Rs 28,500, with 70 per cent of the amount directed to be given to the victim's family. If they fail to pay, they will face an additional three years in prison. 'He led us to the field and showed us where the weapon was hidden," the officer said. The chargesheet was filed on September 30, 2005. During the trial, Balvir Singh requested leniency. He told the court, 'This is my first offence. I have two children and am the sole breadwinner in my family." But the judge rejected his plea. After nearly 20 years, the verdict was delivered by an additional district and session judge (Agra), Rajendra Prasad. Jitendra, Bablu, Pawan, Girraj, Govind and Balvir were all sentenced to rigorous life imprisonment. Each convict was also fined Rs 28,500. If they fail to pay, they will face an extra three years in prison. The court directed that seventy per cent of the fine amount should go to Dharampal's family.
Hans India
2 hours ago
- Hans India
MUDA case: ED attaches 92 immovable properties worth Rs 100 cr in state
Bengaluru: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has provisionally attached 92 immovable properties having market value of approximately Rs 100 crore under the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, in connection with Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA) case in which Karnataka Chief Minister is named as accused number one. The official statement released by the ED on Tuesday stated, 'It is pertinent to mention here that the attachment of these 92 MUDA sites is in continuation to the previous attachment of 160 MUDA sites having a market value of approximately Rs 300 crore. The cumulative market value of Proceeds of Crime provisionally attached so far is approximately Rs 400 crore.' The ED stated that the attached properties are registered in the name of an entity, such as a housing cooperative society and individuals who are front/dummy for influential persons, including MUDA officials. The agency initiated an investigation on the basis of an FIR registered by the Lokayuktha Police, Mysuru under various sections of IPC, 1860 and Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and others, who is the incumbent Chief Minister of Karnataka, the ED stated. The ED investigation revealed a large-scale scam in allotment of MUDA sites by flouting various statutes and government orders/ guidelines, and by other fraudulent means. The role of ex-MUDA commissioners, including GT Dinesh Kumar, has emerged as instrumental in illegal allotment of compensation sites to ineligible entities/individuals, the ED evidence with respect to obtaining bribes for making illegal allotments in the form of cash, bank transfer, movable/ immovable properties has been gathered during the course of the investigation, the ED said. The modus operandi for making illegal allotment involved identification of ineligible beneficiaries and making allotment using fake documents/incomplete documents in direct violation of government orders, and also backdating of allotment letters in some cases, the ED stated. The gratification received for making these illegal allotments was routed through a co-operative society and bank accounts of the relatives/associates of the officers playing a key role in the allotment process. The gratification thus received was further used to purchase some of these illegally allotted MUDA sites in the name of relatives of MUDA officers, the ED investigation is in progress.
