KARACHI: The Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday issued a show-cause notice to Inspector General of Police (IGP) Sindh for concealing facts of police officials’ involvement in criminal cases and ordered him to immediately place over 400 such police officials under suspension.
A larger SC bench headed by Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali was seized with Karachi law and order suo moto implementation case at its Karachi registry. Other members of bench were Justice Khilji Arif Hussain, Justice Sarmad Jalal Usmani, Justice Gulzar Ahmed and Justice Athar Saeed.
At the outset of the hearing, the court took up the matter pertaining to the police functionaries facing criminal trials in various courts of Sindh. Earlier the court had directed the IGP Sindh to produce a report showing details of the postings of such police officials and disciplinary actions taken against them.
IG Sindh filed a report in this regard before the court. He informed it that police officials facing criminal charges have been issued show-cause notices and departmental proceedings initiated against them. The court expressed extreme annoyance when it was brought into its notice that some officials facing trails, including section 302 of PPC (intentional and deliberate murder), were enjoying field postings.
Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali remarked that how a person would testify against those police officials involved in heinous crimes if they are enjoying field postings. IGP Sindh apprised the court of the orders passed by him for taking disciplinary actions against personnel involved in criminal cases.
He could not satisfy the court about whether police personnel found involved in any crime should be suspended or not. The court observed that it is alarming that FIR is lodged against delinquent officials but they are not suspended. It went on to say that is failure of the police that police are not going to take any action despite court orders.
Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali remarked that if police official found in criminal activities is not sacked, he can misuse his office to interfere in proceedings against him. Justice Khilji Arif Hussain said that police officers facing trails under section 302 have been posted as station house officers and many other officers posted in security zones in the metropolis.
Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali spelled out that it is obligatory that if any officer is found involved in criminal activities, he be sacked and if he is not suspended then DIG concerned needs to provide the reasons that why he should not be suspended.
It was brought to the court’s notice by the advocate of SC that two police officers, SSP Thatta Farid Jan Sarhandi and SSP Jamshoro Farrukh Basheer were enjoying the field postings despite they have been accused of murdering the workers of Sindh United Party.
To which IGP said that both were nominated in illegal confinement case but not in murder case. The court came down hard on him when it knew that both officers have not been sacked and report submitted by him does not include the names of both officers.
The court rejected his report containing details of postings of such police officials and disciplinary action taken against them. It observed that he has failed to produce details of other officials involved in crimes, therefore, the court issued him show-cause notice to explain why contempt of court proceedings may not be initiated against him for not sacking police officials involved in crimes.
The court was informed by the traffic police that it has examined 19539 vehicles and turned down the fitness certificates of 1104 vehicles by pursuing the apex court’s orders. The court grilled the traffic police about how much penalty is imposed on traffic offender. To which ADIG traffic replied only 100 is charged.
The court remarked that situation of the public transport was bad. It said that low penalty encourages the violators who blatantly disobey traffic laws.
Sind Home Secretary Waseem Ahmed informed the court that in an effort to curb traffic violations in the city, the home department has prepared a proposal to amend Section 116-A in the Motor Vehicle Ordinance (MVO) 1965 for enhancing penalties imposed on traffic offenders.
He said that a proposal has been moved to the secretary transport department but no step has yet been taken by the relevant secretary for passing such proposal into law.