The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Chennai News : Sub-Inspector ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 for rights violations

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Sep 26, 2005

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Chennai

Sub-Inspector ordered to pay Rs. 10,000 for rights violations

Special Correspondent

"Government should pay the amount, recover it from her salary"

CHENNAI: : The State Human Rights Commission has recommended that a woman Sub-Inspector pay Rs.10,000 as compensation to one R. Subburaj, hailing from Guruvarpatty in Tuticorin district, for human rights violations.

In his order, Commission Member S. Sambandham said the State Government should pay the money and recover it from the salary and other benefits of the official. Superintendent of Police, Tuticorin, should initiate departmental proceedings against the Sub-Inspector.

The Commission was disposing of a complaint from Mr. Subburaj against Varghese, Sub-Inspector, formerly posted at Kovilpatti All-Women Police Station and now at Pudukottai, Tuticorin district.

Mr. Subburaj said following a complaint from his wife, living separately, to the Vilathikulam AWPS, his rights were violated. The Sub-Inspector denied the allegation.Mr. Sambandham said Mr. Subburaj had stated that his wife was ill and he incurred a lot of expenses on her treatment. Even her jewellery had to be pledged. It could not be said that he had made a demand for dowry. He said the respondent had obtained an undertaking from Mr. Subburaj. Three complaints received by her from Mr. Subburaj's wife had been treated as closed. "Hence it is clear that as and when the respondent feels necessary she receives a complaint and closes (it) as and when she wishes."

Mr. Sambandham said if any cognisable offence had been detected, the Sub-Inspector should have registered a first information report. "Viewing from any angle, it is clear that the respondent has exceeded her limit and actively colluded with the wife of the complainant and harassed the complainant and his aged mother. If there had been a fair investigation, the respondent would not have obtained a letter of undertaking from the complainant, Mr. Sambandham said.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu