CHANDIGARH: Higher authorities in Delhi may have to intervene in the conflict between the Chandigarh Police and the Army Over the alleged misbehavior of the city SSP Sumedh Saini, with a Colonel in mufti, as it may not be Possible for the Governor and Union Territory Administrator, Sundra Nath, to find a solution to the problem.
According to reliable sources, the report of the two member inquiry team, comprising Brig Ashok Chaki and N.S.Aulakh, DIG Punjab, paints both the sides black. It was on the expected lines, with the Army representative blaming the SSP and the police Representative holding the Colonel Responsible for the episode. The administration now feels that the inquiry should have been entrusted to neutral, preferable judicial, authority to eliminate the chances of personal bias creeping into the findings.
The report is at present with the administration and it has not been confirmed if the Governor has shown any interest in it.
The incident took place after the murder, at 10:40 p.m., of the wife of a personal security guard of Saini. Initial reports said she had been shot by militants but the cause of the death is still being investigated. A large number of persons had collected outside the residence of the guard, where the body of the woman lay. Saini reached the spot and wanted the onlookers to move away as he feared that the militants (supposed to have been involved in the crime) might strike again. Besides, the crowd could also destroy vital clues. Col Ravi Vats, in civil dress and on leave, was said to be one of the onlookers who had refused to move.
However, there are two versions of what followed. One side says Saini punched the Colonel and when the later resisted, he was, on Saini’s order, removed to a police station and kept in illegal detention for the night Col. Vats had reportedly told his captors that he was a serving Army official, but they did not listen to him. He also received injures in the scuffle.
The other version is that the Colonel, whose identity was not known then, had been taken away by policemen and kept a police station pending further orders from their superiors. He was treated well when he disclosed his identity and was released when its authenticity was established. When contacted, R.S. Gupta, IG, Chandigarh, declined to comment on the two sides of the story. A similar response came from the senior officers of the Western Command.
Following strong protests by senior officers of the Western Command, the Governor ordered an inquiry in to the incident The Army and police authorities were asked to nominate their representatives and the report they have submitted is said to have accentuated the differences between the two. If what is known about the two versions in the report is correct, the Army has not taken kindly to the treatment meted out its senior officer. It is of the view that, according to a standing directive of the Union Home Ministry, the police has to inform the nearest Army headquarters about the detention or arrest of an Army personnel, which was not done in the case of Col Vats. The Chandigarh police, on the other hand, hold that Col Vats was in civil dress and on leave and was a common citizen in the eye of the law. He should not have resisted the conduct of lawful duty by the police.
Another aspect of the report being talked about is that as the two member team had no judicial status, any verdict which goes against cither of the sides may be challenged in courts.
The intervention of the Union Government is also considered essential because only a decision from there could be more acceptable to the parties. Both the police and the Anny are involved in the intensified operations against militants in Punjab and Chandigarh and any bitterness between the two is not considered in consonance with their task.
Article extracted from this publication >> January 8, 1993
