Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The applicant in the rejoinder filed by him has rebutted the pleadings made in the counter reply referred to above. He pleads that one Shri Rajkumar Pandian, Superintendent of Police, presently in judicial custody in connection with fake encounter of Sohrabuddin and killing of his wife Kasurbi, while working as SP, Porbandar, had made allegations against his immediate superior, the then range IGP, Shri H.P. Singh. Shri Singh, likewise reported against Shri Pandian to the DGP and the matter was referred to the State CID (Crime) for enquiry. This was before the applicant was appointed as Additional DGP, CID (Crime & Railways). The enquiry in question was conducted by Shri Pramod Kumar, the then IGP, State CID (Crime), who submitted a report on 19.2.2004. It was established that Shri Rajkumar Pandian had made false allegations against Shri H. P. Singh related to the landing of arms and ammunitions on the coast of Porbandar in January/February, 1993, when Shri Singh himself was the SP, Porbandar. The applicant sent a report to the DGP, Gujarat on 29.2.2004 against Shri Pandian for major penalty. The DGP agreed with the findings of the State CID (Crime) and reported to the State Government to take action against Shri Pandian. This was a confidential report. Amongst the documents, documents contained therein were a transcript of telephonic conversation between Shri Pandian and Mamumiya Pappumiya, who had been absconding for the last nine years. This criminal had so far no connection with any police official in the state. However, when Shri Pandian invited his contact only so that he could persuade him to give some information/evidence against his own IGP Shri H. P. singh, the fugitive tried to convey that he had always helped police. He cited two examples. He first mentioned the name of Shri Sudhir Sinha, the then Commissioner of Police, Rajkot City and stated that he had helped him to solve a murder case. The second example he cited was that he had given information to the applicant also. Insofar as the applicant is concerned, it is pleaded that the so called contact pertains to the period when he was posted as DIG (Operations), Anti Terrorist Squad, between 1993 and 1995, and that the applicant, at no stage, was in contact with Mamumiya Pappumiya. While examining the papers of enquiry against Shri Pandian the applicant, it is averred, was very much aware of the transcript and found nothing untoward in the whole thing.