Who says justice is not there. As long as there are honest people like Sri Shailjakant Mishra, Sri Ghanshyam Ahirwar and the Judges who have the courage to stand with the truth, Justice shall prevail. They are the persons who reinstill the faith in us that not all is lost and it is only that the good need to unite for the evil unites very fast. Our salute to them and Dhirendra Kumar Rai who has demostrated that we should not take things lying down and he was not alone. With Thanks and Regards
CA.Rajeev Sharma B.Com. F.C.A. D.I.S.A (ICA) Chartered Accountant 308 - Sahara Shopping Centre Faizabad Road Lucknow - 226 016 Phone : 0522 - 4003818 - 91-9935553033 P please consider the environment before printing this email Save a tree...please don't print this e-mail any documents unless you really need to. --- On Wed, 28/7/10, Nutan Thakur <[email protected]> wrote: From: Nutan Thakur <[email protected]> Subject: [bm] Opression To: "Bharat Uday Mission" <[email protected]> Date: Wednesday, 28 July, 2010, 11:12 AM Friends, I present before you a very strange case of Dhirendra Kumar Rai, who is a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the U.P. Police. He was placed under suspension on 26.5.2008 and the charge-sheet served on the same date. He was charged of having failed on the occasion on July 21, 2007, while engaged in operation against a dreaded criminal of UP, Thokiya alias Amibika Patel in Chitrakoot. There while getting caught in adverse circumstances, he repeatedly called the Senior Superintendent of Police, STF Amitabh Yash on mobile phone No. 9415902216, the Addl. Director General of Police, STF Shailja Kant Mishra on his mobile phone No. 9415902048 and Dr. Pritender Singh, Superintendent of Police, Chitrakoot on his mobile phone No. 9415902832 for additional force but no force turned up and six of his men got killed. Rai was placed in suspension for having failed miserably in his duty. Since then Rai has been running from pillar to post but to no avail. Recently in Writ Petition No - 768 of 2008 the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench gave very clear orders to reinstate him. They also awarded him a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs, which is a very rare gesture. The main grievance of D K Rai is that he has been persecuted by the government only because he had interrogated the Chief Minister of the State Ms. Mayawati as a CBI officer. High Court looked at the service career and found it exemplary as Rai was involved with Brahmadutt Dwivedi murder case, Taj Heritage Corridor and Century Scam case etc. In this particular case the High Court found that Rai had made no less than 29 calls to all police officials right from the ADG of his branch to the local Station Officer. Still no reinforcement and later Rai was also indicted as being responsible for the deaths. What an irony. During the pleadings, the State Counsel wanted to raise the issue of the statutory discretion exercised by the government and hence the writ petition not being maintainable. The High court went from Webster's Encyclopedia to Rooke case in 1598 to SC judgement in Union of India v. Kuldeep Singh to conclude that Discretion is to discern between right and wrong; and therefore, discretion should be exercised not in arbitrary, whimsical and fanciful manner. Similarly about the power of Judicial review, the High Court did not accept the now dying Wednesbury principle of non-interference saying that Supreme Court in some of the recent cases has departed from Wednesbury principle. About facts, the High Court was most scathing. It made very sweeping comments like- “However, a plain reading of the report of the Superintendent of Police seems to be one sided. There is not even a whisper as to why reinforcement force was not sent to the petitioner to help the petitioner's team whole of the day. “ “It is horrible to note that in spite of receipt of call when the encounter was going on, the Senior Superintendent of Police, STF admittedly had not provided any assistance on the pretext of engagement in operation of Daduwa gang. In case he was not in a position to provide back-up to the petitioner's team, then he should have requested to other authorities to send the reinforcement but the same was not done and burden has been shifted to the petitioner's shoulder with regard to causality of six persons who died in the ambush.” Thankfully for Rai, there were people like Ghanshyam Ahirwar and Shailjakant Mishra in the police force who did not buckle before the pressure. Ahirwar, Circle Officer of the area said loudly that he had not sent any report against Rai forcing the State government to change their stand that it was not Ahirwar but one Akhilesh Narayan Singh who has held an enquiry and submitted a report. Again, Shailja Kant, ADG of STF said in a statement before the enquiry committee that the petitioner had duly informed the authorities about the situation and the allegation raised against the petitioner is false and not correct. He even said that in spite of information communicated, local police had not arrived to the scene of occurrence. Even fabrications and falsifications were presumably made in the records. The High Court says- “In the report dated 1.9.2007 of the Circle Officer, City, Chitrakoot, the date of occurrence has been corrected and converted from 22.2.2007 to 22.7.2007. Fluid seems to have been used and the word, “Kshetradhikari, Nagar” has been substituted by, “Prabhari Nirikshak, Karvi”. High Court also says that- “Things seem to have been managed against the petitioner by interpolation of records.” The High Court concludes that- “In view of above, the overwhelming evidence on record shows that the authorities have taken decision to charge the petitioner on unfounded grounds by fabrication of records suffering from bias - may be for political or other unforeseen reasons.” It also says that “Virtually a fraud has been committed deliberately to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.” Look at the pain in the wordings of the High Court- “Action taken against the petitioner does not only suffer from malice in law but seems to be oppressive.” Based on this conclusion, High Court declared not only Rai to be reinstated but also ordered the State government to give a fine of Rs 2 lakh to Rai. It has also ordered the Chief Secretary of U.P. to recover the cost from the persons who are responsible to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner on the basis of fraudulent records by holding an enquiry in accordance with law and to constitute a Committee and hold an enquiry for the lack of assistance to the petitioner by not providing necessary back-up with police force. So, this is what you call Justice. Dr Nutan Thakur, Secretary, IRDS, Lucknow # 94155-34525
