Monday, October 21, 2013

Make an effort- An article on efforts towards transparency

कोशिश तो कर प्यारे

पिछले कुछ सालों से मैं लगातार प्रशासन में पारदर्शिता और उत्तरदायित्व के क्षेत्र में कार्यरत हूँ और जितना अधिक मैं इस क्षेत्र में समर्पित हो रहा हूँ उतना अधिक यह पाता हूँ कि कई स्थानों पर, कई व्यक्तियों द्वारा इसका सीधा और घोर उल्लंघन किया जा रहा है. इस सम्बन्ध में मेरा यह व्यक्तिगत मत है कि चूँकि प्रत्येक प्राधिकारी को हर काम में अपने व्यक्तिगत अभिमत, अपनी सोच, अपनी चाहत और अपनी मनमर्जी को अधिरोपित करने का इतना अधिक अख्तियार है कि कई बार तमाम नियमों और कानूनों के बाद भी अन्तोगत्वा वस्तुनिष्ठता के स्थान पर व्यक्तिपरकता आ ही जाती है और बहुधा अंतिम निर्णय सम्बंधित अधिकारी के विवेक पर आधारित हो जाने की पूरी संभावना रहती है.

मैं एक लम्बे समय से ऐसे पदों पर नहीं था जहां मेरे सामने इस प्रकार की स्थितियां आयें जहां मुझे निर्णय लेने की जरूरत हो. रूल्स एवं मैनुअल्स विभाग में, जहां मैं पिछले लगभग दो सालों से काम कर रहा था, ऐसी कोई स्थिति उत्पन्न होने का प्रश्न ही नहीं था क्योंकि जहां कोई स्पष्ट कार्य हो वहीँ तो उस कार्य के सम्बन्ध में निर्णय लेने का प्रश्न आता है. इसके विपरीत जब मुझे आजमगढ़ पीएसी में सेनानायक के पद पर तैनाती मिली तब मुझे ऐसे अवसर आने शुरू हुए जब मुझे और सिर्फ मुझे निर्णय लेने थे. ऐसे में मुझे स्वयं काफी-कुछ सीखने का अवसर मिल रहा है जो मैं लोगों से इस उद्देश्य से साझा करना चाहता हूँ कि मेरे स्वयं के अनुभव यह बताएँगे कि कैसे यदि हम चाहें तो प्राधिकारी की व्यक्तिपरकता को कम करते हुए उसके स्थान पर निष्पक्षता और वस्तुनिष्टता को प्रभावी बना सकते हैं.

मैं यह स्पष्ट कर दूँ कि पीएसी के सेनानायक के पद पर ऐसे अनेकानेक अवसर नहीं आते और निश्चित रूप से कई ऐसे पद होंगे जहां प्राधिकारी के स्वयं के स्तर पर ही निर्णय लिए जाने के बारम्बार अवसर हुआ करते हों, पर मैं यह भी कहना चाहूँगा कि जो बात अपने स्वयं के दो अनुभवों से सामने रख रहा हूँ, वह अन्य तमाम स्थितियों पर भी कमोबेश सिद्धांततया लागू हो सकते हैं, यद्यपि निश्चित रूप से प्रत्येक स्थिति की अपनी स्वयं की विशिष्ठता तो होती ही है.

सबसे पहले जब मैं पीएसी में आया तो मेरे पास कई सालों बाद बरसों पहले छूटे कुछ इष्ट-मित्रों के फोन आने शुरू हुए. जाहिर है कि चूँकि मैं लम्बे समय तक “बेकार” और “बेजार” जगह पर तैनात था जहां किसी को कोई काम नहीं पड़ता था और इसीलिए ऐसे मित्रों के फोन भी नहीं आया करते थे. इन फोन से मुझे ज्ञात हुआ कि मेरे बटालियन से कुछ आरक्षियों के नाम अर्मोरर पद के लिए भेजे जाने हैं, जिसके लिए तमाम आरक्षी इच्छुक हैं. इन्ही इच्छुक आरक्षियों के लिए मित्रों और कुछ राजनेताओं के फोन आने शुरू हुए.

मैंने कार्यालय से ज्ञात किया तो मालूम चला कि कुल पच्चीस आरक्षी ने इस पद पर नामांकन के लिए आवेदन किया है. यह भी ज्ञात हुआ कि किसका नाम मेरी तरफ से आगे बढ़ाया जाए इस सम्बन्ध में कोई स्थापित नियम नहीं है अर्थात यह पूरी तरह मेरे विवेक और मेरी इच्छा पर आधारित है. मतलब यह कि इस सम्बन्ध में मैं कोई भी नाम भेज सकता हूँ और पूरी तरह उत्तरदायित्व और पारदर्शिता के आवरण से विमुक्त हूँ.

शायद पहले का अमिताभ ठाकुर रहा होता तो किसी निकट इष्ट-मित्र के कहे पर कोई तीन नाम की संस्तुति कर देता. लेकिन पारदर्शिता और उत्तरदायित्व के प्रति मेरे उत्साह और समर्पण ने मुझे बाध्य कर दिया कि यदि कोई नियम नहीं है तो मैं अपने स्तर पर इसके लिए कोई नियम बना लूँ और उस निर्धारित रीति के अनुरूप जो सबसे ऊपर रहे उसका नाम स्वतः ही संस्तुत हो जाएगा. मैंने इस सम्बन्ध मे जानकार अधिकारियों को बुलाया और उनसे चर्चा कर इस पद के लिए जो अर्हता दिखी, उसे ध्यान में रहते हुए इन अधिकारियों की सहमति से एक नियम बना दिया.

अगले दिन मेरे पास उस नियम के अनुसार सभी आरक्षियों के अंक प्राप्त हो गए और तीन लोग जो सबसे ऊपर थे, मई स्वयं ही उनके नाम भेजने को बाध्य हो गया. तात्पर्य यह कि मैंने अपनी इच्छा को एक नियम में परिवर्तित कर दिया जिससे मेरी किसी का पक्ष लेने यदि कोई इच्छा रही भी तो तो भी वह स्वतः ही समाप्त हो गयी.

अगले उदाहरण के रूप में मैं चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारियों की भर्ती का उदाहरण देना चाहूँगा. मुझे एक चयन समिति, जिसका मैं अध्यक्ष था, के साथ सात चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मियों की कुक (रसोईया) पद पर भर्ती करनी थी. पद सात और आवेदन लगभग 550. यहाँ भी जब मैंने देखा तो पाया कि अर्हता और चयन प्रक्रिया के रूप में मात्र इतना व्यवसायिक दक्षता अंकित था. व्यवसायिक दक्षता का यहाँ क्या अर्थ हुआ और इसे कैसे मापा जाए, यह बात स्पष्ट नहीं थी. मुझे मौखिक रूप से लोगों ने बताया कि यह भर्ती कुल मिला कर मेरी मर्जी से होगी क्योंकि चूँकि विशेष निर्धारित प्रक्रिया है नहीं और व्यवसायिक दक्षता का कोई पैमाना नहीं होने के कारण जिसे मैं व्यावसायिक दक्ष मान लूँगा वही चयनित हो जाएगा.

इधर भर्ती शुरू हुई नहीं कि कई फोन आने शुरू हो गए- कुछ मंत्रियों के, कुछ वरिष्ठ अधिकारियों के, कुछ अन्य परिचितों के. सभी यही कहते कि आप जिसे चाहेंगे उसका चयन हो जाएगा, कृपया इसका चयन कर दीजिये. कुछ तो इधर-उधर का इशारा भी कर देते.

मैंने इस विषय पर विचार मंथन किया और सोचा कि इस प्रक्रिया में वस्तुनिष्ठता लाने के लिए क्या किया जाए. इस विमर्श से यह बात उभरी कि चूँकि भर्ती कुक पद के लिए है अतः खाना बनवाने का काम दिया जाए. फिर यह विचार हुआ कि ऐसा क्या बनवाया जाए जो कम समय में हो सके, जिसमे बहुत खर्च भी नहीं आये, जो आसानी से कराया भी जा सके और जिससे दक्षता भी टेस्ट हो जाये. विचार विमर्श से यह तय हुआ कि रोटी सेंकना और खीरे को छील कर सलाद बनवाना ठीक रहेगा. इसके लिए समय निर्धारित किया गया बीस मिनट.

चयन समिति के बाकी सदस्य भी इस व्यवस्था से काफी प्रसन्न दिखे, शायद वह भी यही चाहते थे कि पारदर्शिता और ईमानदारी से प्रक्रिया चलाई जाए. जब पहले दौर में यह कार्यक्रम हमने प्रारम्भ किया तो मेरे मन में शंका थी- पता नहीं यह प्रयोग सफल होगा अथवा नहीं. लेकिन एक बार में ही मालूम हो गया कि हमने बिलकुल सही विधा खोज ली है. हमने यह भी निश्चय किया कि मौके पर चारों सदस्य अपने अंक इंक पेन से देंगे और उसे अभ्यर्थी को भी बता देंगे, जिससे हमारे स्तर पर गड़बड़ी की कोई संभावना ही ना रह सके.

इस प्रक्रिया में हमें वास्तव में बहुत संतोष मिला और सब कुछ आँखों के सामने होता दिखा. साथ में आये चयन समिति के सदस्य तो इतने खुश हुए कि उन्होंने कई बार कहा कि उन्होंने बहुत अच्छी बात सीखी है जिसका वे अन्यत्र भी प्रयोग करेंगे.

मैं इन उदाहरणों से अपनी प्रशंसा नहीं कर रहा, यदि ऐसा होता दीखता है तो उसके लिए क्षमाप्राथी हूँ. मेरा उद्देश्य मात्र यह बात सामने रखनी है कि उन स्थानों पर भी, जहां बाह्य तौर पर पूर्ण विवेकाधिकार दिखता है, यदि एक निर्धारित और पारदर्शी प्रक्रिया बना दी जाए तो यह मनमानापन काफी हद तक दूर हो सकता है और अधिकारी का सिरदर्द और बेईमानी करने की गुंजाइश भी.

अमिताभ ठाकुर

Copy of FIR against BSNL, other Co for dirty missed calls

अश्लील कॉल पर बीएसएनएल, अन्य कंपनी के खिलाफ दर्ज एफआइआर की प्रति---

सेवा में,
प्रभारी निरीक्षक,
थाना कोतवाली
जनपद आजमगढ़  

विषय- बीएसएनएल मोबाइल पर मिस्ड कॉल के माध्यम से आपराधिक कृत्य करने के सम्बन्ध में प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट दर्ज करने हेतु

महोदय,
     कृपया अनुरोध है कि मैं अमिताभ ठाकुर स्थायी पता 5/426, विराम खंड, गोमतीनगर, लखनऊ एक आईपीएस अधिकारी हूँ और वर्तमान में 20वीं वाहिनी पीएसी, आजमगढ़ में सेनानायक के पद पर तैनात हूँ.

मैं बीएसएनएल का उपभोक्ता हूँ और बीएसएनएल  का प्री-पेड मोबाइल नंबर 94155-34526 प्रयोग करता हूँ. इसी प्रकार मेरी पत्नी डॉ नूतन ठाकुर बीएसएनएल  का प्री-पेड मोबाइल नंबर 094155-34525 प्रयोग करती हैं.

कल दिनांक 20/10/2013 को समय 09.50 पर पीएसी, आजमगढ़ कैम्पस में स्थित सेनानायक आवास पर मेरी पत्नी के मोबाइल नंबर 094155-34525 पर एक फोन नंबर +93780872199 से फोन आया जो दो-तीन बार बज के कट गया. स्वभाव के मुताबिक़ मेरी पत्नी ने उस नंबर पर समय 12.00 बजे वापस कॉल किया. दूसरी तरफ से एक पुरुष और एक महिला के बीच बातचीत की आवाज़ आ रही थी. ये दोनों कुछ गन्दी बातचीत कर रहे थे जिसमे शारीरिक संपर्क करने के तरीकों जैसे अश्लील विषय पर बेहद बेहूदे और भद्दे शब्दों में आपस में बात हो रही थी. मेरी पत्नी यह सब समझ नहीं पायीं और उन्हें लगा कि शायद कुछ क्रोस-कनेक्शन लग गया है. जब तक वे समझतीं तब तक 1.03 मिनट में उनके कुल तीस रुपये कट गए.

इसी प्रकार कल दिनांक 20/10/2013 को समय 12.04 बजे मेरे मोबाइल नंबर 94155-34526 पर भी ऐसा ही मिस्ड कॉल आया था. जब मेरी पत्नी नूतन ने इस सम्बन्ध में मुझे बताया तो मैंने इस बात को पूरी तरह तस्दीक करने के लिए आज दिनांक 21/10/2013 को समय 11.25 बजे उस नंबर पर फोन मिलाया. मैंने भी यही सुना कि दूसरी तरफ से एक पुरुष और एक महिला आपस में बात कर रहे हैं, जो पूरी तरह अश्लील और भद्दा है. करीब 0.49 मिनट की इस बातचीत में मेरे 15.00 रुपये कटे.

मैंने यह बात कई बार सुनी थी कि कुछ आपराधिक लोग इस प्रकार मिस्ड कॉल दे कर लोगों को फोन करने को प्रोत्साहित/बाध्य कर देते हैं और वापस फोन करने पर अलग-अलग तरह से उन्हें ठगते हैं जिस प्रक्रिया में वापस कॉल करने वाले का काफी पैसा कट जाता है जिसका सीधा लाभ मिस्ड कॉल करने वाले को होता है. उन्ही में से एक तरीका इस प्रकार मिस्ड कॉल करके दूसरी तरफ से गन्दी बातचीत सुनाना भी लगता है जिस पर अलग-अलग व्यक्ति अलग-अलग ढंग से प्रतिक्रिया करें और मिस्ड कॉल करने वाले को अनुचित और आपराधिक लाभ मिले तथा फोन करने वाले की आपराधिक हानि हो. यह कहा जाता है कि इस तरह के कामों में बीएसएनएल तथा अन्य तमाम कंपनियों के भी कुछ अधिकारियों की मिलीभगत रहती है जो पैसे के लालच में इस तरह के कार्यों की सरपरस्ती करते हैं.

इससे स्पष्ट दीखता है कि यह किसी बड़े कॉमर्शियल गैंग का कार्य है जो बीएसएनएल तथा अन्य तमाम कंपनियों के भी कुछ अधिकारियों को मिला कर इस तरह लाखों उपभोक्ताओं को खुलेआम ठग रहे हैं और इस प्रक्रिया में अश्लीलता और अश्लील शब्द और विचार प्रसारित करने का अलग से कर रहे हैं. अतः यह नितांत आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उपरोक्त आपराधिक कृत्यों के सम्बन्ध में तत्काल प्रथम सूचना रिपोर्ट पंजीकृत कर इसकी विवेचना की जाए ताकि मेरे, मेरी पत्नी नूतन एवं अन्य तमाम लोगों के विरुद्ध इन आपराधिक कृत्य में सम्मिलित लोगों के विरुद्ध नियमानुसार दंडात्मक कार्यवाही हो सके और भविष्य में लोगों को इस छल और आपराधिक कृत्य से बचाया जा सके.

तदनुसार आपसे उचित धाराओं में एफआइआर दर्ज कर अग्रिम कार्यवाही किये जाने हेतु अनुरोध है.
                                     भवदीय,

पत्र संख्या- AT/BSNL/AZM/01                         (अमिताभ ठाकुर)
दिनांक- 21/10/2013                            5/426, विराम खंड,
                                       गोमतीनगर, लखनऊ 
                                     # 094155-34526












Thursday, October 10, 2013

Copy of Writ Petition for "Police Complaint Authority"



In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-  9660 of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur                                                                           Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another                                                             Respondents
INDEX
S No
Description of documents relied upon

Page No


From
To
1.
List of Dates and Events (separate)
Separate

2.
Memo of Writ Petition


3.
Photo Identity of the petitioner


4.
Affidavit




 Lucknow                                                                Amitabh Thakur
Dated- 09/10/2013                                           Petitioner in Person                                                                                                        # 94155-34526








In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No- 9660 of 2013 (M/B-Civil)
Amitabh Thakur                                                                           Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another                                                             Respondents

LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS

S No               Date                                                   Event                       
1.     29/02/2012                                   First of the complaints sent by the
                                                              petitioner
2.     2012-2013                                      Many complaints regarding
                                                              Different senior police officers sent
                                                              By the petitioner

The petitioner has sent many complaints to the respondents to enquire into various serious allegations against senior police officers regarding alleged misdemenour, misconduct, Human Rights violation. The respondents have so far failed to act upon any of these complaints.
If there had been an independent “Police Complaints Authority” to function autonomously and independently, away from the influence of the respondents, such a thing would never have happened. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) at Para 14, sub Para 6 of its landmark order dated 22/09/2006 has clearly directed formation of such Police Complaints Authority” at districts and State level. Despite this order some seven years ago, the respondents have failed to comply with this order. This apathy on the part of the respondents has seriously affected the petitioner resulting in apathy and inaction as regards his various complaints.
Hence this Writ Petition.


Lucknow                                                                 Amitabh Thakur
Dated- 09/10/2013                                           Petitioner in Person                                                                                                        # 94155-34526



In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-  9660 of 2013 (M/B-Civil)








Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow--------   Petitioner
Versus
1.     State of Uttar Pradesh through Principle Secretary (Home), Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow
2.     Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow----------- Respondents
Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
To,
The Hon’ble Chief Justice and His other Hon’ble companion Judges of the aforesaid Court:
The humble petition of the above named petitioner most respectfully begs to submit as under:
1.     That by means of this petition, the petitioner is invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court vested with it  through Article 226 of the  Constitution to kindly issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, Principle Secretary (Home) (PS Home, for short) and Director General of Police (DGP, for short) of Uttar Pradesh, to immediately constitute the “Police Complaints Authorities” at the State and district levels in Uttar Pradesh as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) through its order dated 22/09/2006, within a reasonable period, say two months and to kindly direct the respondents to refer the various complaints sent by the petitioner against various police officers, being mentioned in the subsequent Paras of this Writ Petition to the appropriate Police Complaint Authorities so constituted.
The petitioner declares that he has not filed any other Writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Hon’ble Court either at Allahabad or its Lucknow bench pertaining to the subject matter and/ or for the relief prayed for in the instant writ petition. It is further declared that in respect of the same subject, no caveat notice has been received by the petitioner.
2.     That the Petitioner Amitabh Thakur is an IPS officer of UP Cadre and is also associated with works in the field of transparency and accountability in governance and issues related with Human Rights at this individual level. Among a few things he is seriously engaged in is regarding the alleged instances of inappropriate, arbitrary, improper, illegal and authoritarian treatment meted to the subordinate police officers in the UP Police by their superior officers.  He is filing this Writ Petition in his individual capacity as an affected party whose complaints have remained completely unheard.
3.     That as stated earlier, the petitioner has taken up many issues related with alleged abuse, ill-treatment, exploitative behavior and action of subordinate police officers by superior police authorities and also as regards inappropriate action taken against him by superior police officers, through the misuse of their superior positions and the power bestowed to them.
4.     That one of the instances where the petitioner sent a complaint as regards alleged mistreatment to Sri Jay Prakash Kanaujia, the Stenographer in the Rules and Manuals Department in UP Police, where the petitioner was then posted, of which the petitioner is also a witness in the entire episode. On 29/02/2012, Sri Rahul Asthana, then SP in the Rules and Manuals office (now retired) allegedly abused Sri Kanaujia with the most filthy words, in the dirtiest of the manner, using all kind of extremely abusive words.  Sri Kanaujia wept before the petitioner about this mistreatment and the petitioner wrote a letter No Ni.Gra./Vividh-100/2012 dated 29/02/2012 immediately to the DGP and DG of the Rules and Manuals Department to take appropriate action in this matter.  
5.     That the DGP gave the enquiry to a DIG rank officer Sri Ashutosh Pandey, who produced an enquiry report dated 16/03/2012 which came more like a covering up exercise of the entire event.  The enquiry report admitted that angry dirty words came from Sri Asthana’s chamber but it saved Sri Asthana by giving him all possible benefits of doubt, despite Sri Kanaujia and many other police officers who were eyewitnesses to this episode giving their evidence against Sri Asthana.   
6.     That when the petitioner got this enquiry report through RTI, he was deeply perturbed by the one sidedness of the report and the apparent slant of the enquiry officer in saving the interests of a fellow IPS officer at the cost of a subordinate police personnel.
7.     That the petitioner sent a letter No Ni.Gra./Vividh-100/2012 dated 15/10/2012 to the DGP presenting the doubtful and apparently one-sided facts in the enquiry report and asking for an independent and truthful enquiry. Sri Kanaujia also wrote many letters to the DGP praying for enquiry but nothing happened for long and finally when the petitioner went on pursuing the matter, the DGP sent back the enquiry to IG (Rules and Manuals) under whom Sri Kanaujia works. To the best of the petitioner’s information, the enquiry officer is sitting over the matter for months. The petitioner has been orally told by Sri Kanaujia that IG (Rules and Manuals) as enquiry officer had initially tried to persuade Sri Kanaujia by asking him to forget the matter and let bygones be bygones so as to give a statement that he did not want to pursue the matter any further. But when Sri Kanaujia showed reluctance to this suggestion, the IG (Rules and manuals) presumably forgot the enquiry and during many months of the petitioner’s posting in Rules and manuals department, at least his statement was not taken in the case, despite the petitioner being a witness of the entire chain of events. The matter, to the petitioner’s knowledge remains pending and he is sure that Sri Kanujia has very few possibilities of getting justice in his complaint.
8.     That the second instance is related with Sri V K Sharma, a retired DySP, who was then posted to 38th Bn PAC, Aligarh. Sri Sharma was allegedly harassed and suspended for having vented his pain and agony before the Media whereby he had put some serious allegations of corruption against Sri A C Sharma, then DGP. The moment his statement was relayed through some news channels, Sri V K Sharma was suspended by the State Government on the recommendations of the DGP and the enquiry was assigned to the DIG, PAC, Agra. Since the allegations were there against the DGP of the State, there was naturally no point in getting the matter enquired by an officer subordinate to the DGP and working under him. When the petitioner came to know of this brutal and inhuman incidence, he talked to Sri V K Sharma and after having gathered the requisite information, he sent a letter No AT/VKS/DGP/01 dated 30/12/2012 in his individual capacity to the Respondent No 1 requesting him to get the entire matter enquired by a sufficiently senior officer outside the Police Department, so as to bring the truth.
9.     That in fact later this Hon’ble Court in its order dated 04/01/2013   in V K Sharma vs State of UP and others (Writ Petition No 1587/2012 (S/B) very clearly said-“From the facts indicated above, it is evident that the impugned order of suspension smacks arbitrariness and colourable exercise of powers by the authorities” and quashed the order of suspension, which this Hon’ble Court resorts to only in the rarest cases.
10.                       That since then the petitioner has sent umpteen numbers of letters requesting for enquiry into the entire episode including the allegations against Sri A C Sharma and the improper suspension of Sri V K Sharma but nothing has happened in this matter so far and now both Sri Sharmas have also retired.
11.                       That in the third instance Sri Raghuraj Singh Bhati, Sub Inspector posted in ps Mirapur in district Muzaffarnagar was suspended by the then SSP of Muzaffarnagar. As per various news paper reports, the SSP suspended Sri Bhati after the SSP had abused him using improper language on which Sri Bhati, feeling hurt and humiliated wrote all these facts in the General Diary of Mirapur police station. When the SSP came to know of this fact that Sri Bhati had recorded this entire episode in the GD, she allegedly suspended him. The enquiry against Sri Bhati was presumably given to an Additional SP working under the same SSP who had been alleged of misbehavior and abusive language.
12.                       That when the petitioner came to know of this episode, he talked to Sri Bhati on phone and after having gathered the requisite information he immediately wrote letter No AT/Muz/Home/01 dated 05/06/2013 in his individual capacity to the respondents where after presenting the facts coming through Media reports, he prayed that the matter be enquired by a sufficiently senior officer outside the Police department so as to provide fair enquiry in the matter.
13.                       That here again despite many reminders since then nothing has happened in the case. After the petitioner’s letter, Sri Bhati got almost immediately reinstated and the matter was presumably hushed up.
14.                       That the fourth case is related with alleged beating of three class IV employees (called “Followers) by SSP Moradabad at his residence for having kept a ruling party politician waiting for an hour or so. When the petitioner came to know of this brutal and inhuman incidence, he talked to the three employees and after having gathered the requisite information, he wrote to the respondents through Letter No AT/MBD/DGP/01 dated 22/09/2013 where he prayed for administrative action against the SSP and also registration of FIR. The SSP got suspended almost immediately but for days no Medical examination of these three police employees was conducted, nor has any FIR been registered so far. The matter has now been given for enquiry to IG, Zone, Bareilly and no one knows what the fate of such an enquiry will be, where even the Medical examination of the victims was conducted days after the episode only after much efforts by the three followers and no FIR has till been registered, to the best of the petitioner’s information.
15.                       That the petitioner has full faith and belief that all these instances related with the complaints presented by the petitioner as regards alleged improprieties and denial of human rights to subordinate police officers would have been quickly and correctly redressed had there been an independent and autonomous police complaint cell/authority, not under the functional and administrative control of the respondents.
16.                       That as explained in above para, all these complaints met such fate the complainant/victim is a subordinate police officer and the person being alleged is a superior officer in the department, though the petitioner agrees that the situation might be the same in cases of complaints made by outsiders/common men against the police officers.
17.                       That one of the major reasons for such situations being faced by the petitioner and other victims whose cases he espoused seems to be the absence of an independent Enquiry Committee/Grievance redressal system and the present grievance redressal mechanism functioning under the police department.
18.                       That if there were an independent and autonomous existence where every person, including the petitioner having his grievance/complaint against the police officers mentioned above would have presented his complaint, it would then have been enquired truthfully and independently (without fear or favour) by that particular Committee/Commission/authority.
19.                       That if there was an independent authority then such things as stated in above Para would never have happened. Whenever the above complaints mentioned would have been presented, the Enquiry Committee/authority would have taken up the complaint in a prescribed manner and would definitely have undertaken an independent and autonomous enquiry without going into the details of whether the accused police officer is a Constable or a DGP.
20.                       That since there is no such mechanism, all the petitioner’s complaints have remained in the mercy of the respondents. No one is willing to undertake the enquiry. Even if some enquiry is being conducted, there is a possibility of its being an eyewash or face-saving exercise because it can be easily understood that a DIG will not enquire against a DGP or because of a possibility of one of these reasons- partisan behavior, nepotism, monetary allurements, functional requirements, day to day interaction and so on.
21.                       That one of the countries known, respected and recognized widely for its efficient, humane, accountable and independent policing is Great Britain. There they have adopted an Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC, for short) which is a non-departmental public body in England and Wales responsible for overseeing the system for handling complaints made against police forces in England and Wales.
22.                       That the IPCC is overseen by a Chair, ten operational and two non-executive Commissioners. The Chair is a Crown appointment and Commissioners are public appointments. The IPCC's Commissioners and staff are based in IPCC regional offices. As well as employing its own independent investigators to investigate the most serious cases, the IPCC has staff performing a number of other functions. They also assess appeals from the public concerning the outcome of police decisions regarding complaints. The IPCC also takes a lead role in developing new policy for the complaints system and for police practices.
23.                       That the IPCC's ten operational Commissioners and two non-executive Commissioners are appointed by the Home Secretary for a five or three-year period. The Chair is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of the Home Secretary. Commissioners by law may not have served with the police at any time, been the Chair or a member of SOCA at any time or been a Commissioner or officer of Customs at any time. They are the public, independent face of the IPCC. The Commission is the governing board of the IPCC, holding collective responsibility for governance of the Commission including oversight of the Executive. As public office holders, Commissioners oversee IPCC investigations and the promotion of public confidence in the complaints system (known as Guardianship). Each Commissioner also has responsibility for a particular portfolio such as firearms, deaths in custody, road policing and youth engagement. Commissioners in making decisions on individual cases act under the delegated authority of the Commission. All appointments, which are full-time and non-executive are for a five-year term, were through open competition. The commission meets bi-monthly and dates can be found on the IPCC website.
24.                       That the principle of natural justice, Nemo iudex in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa) which means, literally, no-one should be a judge in their own cause also speaks and warrants the same thing, which says that no person can judge a case in which they have an interest. The rule is very strictly applied to any appearance of a possible bias, even if there is actually none because "Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done”
25.                       That unfortunately this cardinal rule is being broken in this particular aspect of justice where the person being complained against often has very close relationship with the enquiry officer- either as a  superior officer or as juniors or as colleagues, friends, acquaintances etc
26.                       That it was possibly with such things in mind that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) at Para 14, sub Para 6 of its landmark order dated 22.09.2006 said-“14. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the various reports. In discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations: Police Complaints Authority: (6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court. The head of the State level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be assisted by three to five members depending upon the volume of complaints in different States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State Government from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State Public Service Commission. The panel may include members from amongst retired civil servants, police officers or officers from any other department, or from the civil society. They would work whole time for the Authority and would have to be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them. The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to conduct field inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize the services of retired investigators from the CID, Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The State level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and State levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority.”
27.                       That unfortunately the same has not been adopted/incorporated in the State of UP and that possibly is the prime reason for the petitioner’s bane and problems.
28.                       That as explained in above Para, if there such an independent Police Complaints Authority at district and State level in the manner very clearly illustrated and specified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, none of the petitioner’s complaints mentioned above would have gone unheard or would have met the fate they are presently witnessing.
29.                       That, with the above facts and law, as explained in some details in above Para, the petitioner being personally aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents towards formation of Police Complaints Authority at districts and State level as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court resulting in inaction and apathy towards all his complaints mentioned in this Writ Petition, he is left with no other option than to approach the Hon’ble Court with this Writ Petition to ask for certain prayers because of the reasons being stated among the Grounds as enumerated below.
30.                       That the petitioner’s photograph and Identity proof has been enclosed along with.
GROUNDS
(1) Because the petitioner has sent many complaints to the respondents to enquire into various serious allegations against senior police officers related with other police officers
(2) Because the respondents have so far failed to act upon any of these complaints
(3) Because if there had been an independent “Police Complaints Authority” to function autonomously and independently, away from the influence of the respondents, such a thing would never have happened
(4) Because the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) at Para 14, sub Para 6 of its landmark order dated 22/09/2006 has clearly directed formation of such Police Complaints Authority” at districts and State level
(5) Because despite this order some seven years ago, the respondents have failed to comply with this order
(6) Because this apathy on the part of the respondents have seriously affected the petitioner’s complaints as explained in the Petition
(7) Because most of the developing Nations have such independent “Police Complaints Authority” known by different names
(8) Because it is the basic requirement of the Principle of Natural Justice Nemo iudex in causa sua (or nemo iudex in sua causa), that is, no-one should be a judge in their own cause.
PRAYER
Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to-
(a)             Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents, Principal Secretary Home and Director General of Police, UP to immediately constitute the “Police Complaints Authorities” at the State and district levels in Uttar Pradesh as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors (Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996) (Citation (2006)8SCC1) through its order dated 22/09/2006, within a reasonable period, say two months
(b)             Issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to refer the various complaints sent by the petitioner through letters No Ni.Gra./Vividh-100/2012 dated 29/02/2012, AT/VKS/DGP/01 dated 30/12/2012, AT/Muz/Home/01 dated 05/06/2013 and AT/MBD/DGP/01 dated 22/09/2013 (along with subsequent reminder letters etc) against various police officers, being mentioned in the subsequent Paras of this Writ Petition, to the appropriate Police Complaint Authorities so constituted for enquiry and appropriate action.

Lucknow                                                                 Amitabh Thakur
Dated- 09/10/2013                                         Petitioner in Person                                                                                                          # 94155-34526

In the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
Writ petition No-              of 2013 (M/B- Civil)

Amitabh Thakur                                                                           Petitioner
Versus
State of UP and another                                                             Respondents








AFFIDAVIT
I, Amitabh Thakur, aged about 45 years, s/o Sri T N Thakur r/o 5/426, Viram Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, religion Hinduism, education- B Tech, profession- Government Service, the deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under-
1.     That the deponent is the sole petitioner in the above noted petition and as such he is fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, deposed to hereunder.
2.     That the contents of the paragraphs 1                                                                     of the Writ petition are true to my personal knowledge,                                            based on documents and records and                                                   believed to be true or are based on legal advice.
3.     That the Annexure No NONE are the true copy of the original.



Place Lucknow                                                                  (Amitabh Thakur)
Date-     09/10/2013                                                      Deponent
VERIFICATION
I, the deponent above named, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 above this Affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge. No part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed. So, help me God

Signed and verified this the                             day of                                    2013  at Lucknow
Deponent
Identification
I identify the deponent, on the basis of records produced before me, who has signed before me.
                                    Advocate

Solemnly affirmed me on                                 at                                am/pm by the deponent Amitabh Thakur, who has been identified by Sri                                    clerk to Sri                                                                                                                                       , Advocate, high court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow
I have satisfied myself by examining the deponent that she understands the contents of this Affidavit which have been read over and explained to him by me
                       



Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 22 September, 2006
Author: S . Y.K.
Bench: Y Sabharwal, C Thakker, P Balasubramanyan
CASE NO.:
Writ Petition (civil) 310 of 1996
(2006)8SCC1
14. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the various reports. In discharge of our constitutional duties and obligations having regard to the aforenoted position, we issue the following directions to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance till framing of the appropriate legislations:
Police Complaints Authority:
(6) There shall be a Police Complaints Authority at the district level to look into complaints against police officers of and up to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Similarly, there should be another Police Complaints Authority at the State level to look into complaints against officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. The district level Authority may be headed by a retired District Judge while the State level Authority may be headed by a retired Judge of the High Court/Supreme Court. The head of the State level Complaints Authority shall be chosen by the State Government out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice; the head of the district level Complaints Authority may also be chosen out of a panel of names proposed by the Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court nominated by him. These Authorities may be assisted by three to five members depending upon the volume of complaints in different States/districts, and they shall be selected by the State Government from a panel prepared by the State Human Rights Commission/Lok Ayukta/State Public Service Commission. The panel may include members from amongst retired civil servants, police officers or officers from any other department, or from the civil society. They would work whole time for the Authority and would have to be suitably remunerated for the services rendered by them. The Authority may also need the services of regular staff to conduct field inquiries. For this purpose, they may utilize the services of retired investigators from the CID, Intelligence, Vigilance or any other organization. The State level Complaints Authority would take cognizance of only allegations of serious misconduct by the police personnel, which would include incidents involving death, grievous hurt or rape in police custody. The district level Complaints Authority would, apart from above cases, may also inquire into allegations of extortion, land/house grabbing or any incident involving serious abuse of authority. The recommendations of the Complaints Authority, both at the district and State levels, for any action, departmental or criminal, against a delinquent police officer shall be binding on the concerned authority. National Security Commission: