OP Singh
Soon after I was appointed the SSP of Lucknow, assignments kept me constantly on toes. In those days, Lucknow had not been seriously affected by organised crime.
Perhaps my response did not satisfy him, and he insisted that the police personnel should be suspended immediately. (Writer is former DGP, Uttar Pradesh, and president of Indian Police Foundation) You Can Also Check: Gold Rate in Lucknow | Silver Rate in Lucknow | Bank Holidays in Lucknow | Public Holidays in Lucknow | Lucknow AQI | Weather in Lucknow | Petrol Price in Lucknow | Diesel Price in Lucknow | CNG Price in Lucknow | LPG Price in Lucknow Stay updated with the latest Lucknow news. Traditional crimes were the principal policing concern, traffic enforcement was an urgent requirement, and maintaining routine law and order remained the primary responsibility of the police. In such an environment, being an SSP, I had considerable direct interaction with citizens and had regular meetings with public representatives. It was during this period that an incident gave me an early lesson in handling political representatives while remaining fair and measured in my approach. On one occasion, there was a complaint regarding the alleged manhandling of a political representative who happened to be a close supporter of the local MLA . The MLA, who was from the ruling party, came to meet me personally and raised the matter. I listened to him and assured him that I would look into the matter and take appropriate action after examining the facts. The MLA left my office, and I assumed that he was satisfied that his complaint had been heard. From my side, the matter was now part of the normal process of policing. I immediately handed over the complaint to then SP (city) and asked him to conduct an inquiry and submit report within a reasonable timeframe. At that stage, I believed I had dealt with the matter exactly as it should have been dealt with. Later that evening, I received a call from the same legislator. He repeated his complaint and, this time, wanted to know what action I had taken against the police personnel concerned. Download the TOI App.
I then used a local idiom to make my point and told him that a cucumber thief could not be given death penalty. He then referred to the incident in a somewhat lighter vein, saying that a political supporter had been treated badly, no immediate action had been taken, and, to make matters worse, the SSP had responded by giving an example involving a “cucumber thief”. I responded calmly but firmly that disciplinary action could not be taken merely on a complaint. The facts had to be established, and the action had to be commensurate with the nature of the misconduct. It was perhaps an unusual thing for an SSP to say to a sitting MLA, but I believed the principle was simple – policing requires both firmness and fairness, and neither public pressure nor political influence should substitute for an objective assessment of facts. Before I could explain my side of the matter, the DIG stepped in. He explained the circumstances to the CM in a measured and convincing manner. He also put my response in its proper context. The DIG’s intervention was important. He did not confront the CM or appear to be defending me emotionally; he simply placed the facts before him. His explanation perhaps helped tilt the conversation in my favour and ensured that my side of the story was heard. I cannot say what crossed the CM’s mind at that moment. The conversation ended rather abruptly. He moved towards the helicopter and departed for his scheduled programme. I was left standing there with my DIG, reflecting how quickly a routine policing matter could acquire an entirely different dimension when it intersected with political relationships.
Due to his persistence, I was summoned to explain my side of the story. Because of the confrontation itself, but because it reinforced my belief that policing requires the courage to listen to everyone, but the independence to act according to the facts, i continued as SSP Lucknow and the episode became one of those early experiences in my career that stayed with me — not.
I told him that I had already entrusted the matter to the SP (city) for inquiry, and I expected to receive his report the following day. The MLA was said to be close to the then chief minister. The MLA appeared quite angry with my straightforward response. Perhaps, he had not expected such an answer from a young officer. I expected the inquiry report to reach me the following day, after which I would examine the facts and take whatever action was appropriate. Little did I realise that the matter was not going to end so easily. The next morning, I was summoned by the DIG who asked me to accompany him to the airport. As we drove there, he casually asked me about the incident involving the MLA and the slightly unpleasant conversation we had had the previous evening. I narrated the entire episode to the DIG, who did not comment on the issue but I could sense that he was taking me for a meeting with the chief minister. I later understood what had happened. The MLA, displeased with my response, had waited late into the night at the CM’s residence to complain about me. My meeting with the CM was not particularly pleasant. He did not acknowledge my greeting and instead continued looking towards the DIG. He remarked that this young SSP perhaps did not understand the political relationship he had with the MLA. For the next few days, I waited, almost expecting my transfer order to arrive at any moment. No transfer order came. That incident taught me another lesson about policing – an officer must make difficult decisions without keeping consequences in mind.