What's New

Case Studies

Q. You are posted as the Superintendent of Police (SP) in a district of a state where alcohol prohibition has been imposed recently. The District Excise department has conducted many raids and seized liquor in large quantities, for which it has received state-wide public appreciation. A few months later reports surface in the media that in this district, hundreds of seized bottles of illicit liquor are missing from the government malkhanas or stores. As a result, the government is left red-faced. You are asked by the DM, who is the overall in-charge of the district excise setup, to investigate the matter. Upon investigation, you unearth a nexus of politicians and government officials who smuggled seized liquor and sold it through spurious means both inside and outside the state. In this context, evaluate these options: 1. Report your findings to the DM and seek instructions for further actions, stating clearly the criminal offences committed prima facie. 2. Charge all accused under legal provisions and let the law take its own course. 3. Being aware of the seriousness of the matter, discretely put the detailed investigation report in the public domain and expose the nexus. Also, suggest, without restricting yourself to the given options, the final course of action that you would prefer.

The given case poses serious ethical concerns as it involves graft or unscrupulous use of the public office for personal gain including theft from official stores as well as illegal inter-state and intra- state trade of a commodity banned in the state. Such actions lead to public mistrust in the government officials and bring disrepute to the whole department and administration due to wrong actions of a few. In the given case, it is the duty of the government apparatus to ensure the accountability of public servants, which is paramount in ensuring public faith in the government.

The key stakeholders in this case include: few government officials and politicians as alleged culprits, I (Superintendent of Police) as the investigating officer, District Magistrate (DM) as the overall in-charge of the district excise setup, media, State administration and the public at large.

Following are the options to deal with the case:

1. Report your findings to the DM and seek instructions for further actions, stating clearly the criminal offences committed prima facie.

The DM, who designated me as the investigating officer in this case, becomes my supervising officer for this case. As per the government rules on hierarchy, it is imperative for me to submit my investigation report to the DM. As the overall in-charge of the district excise setup, it is his/her prerogative to take action based on my investigation report and submit it to his/her superiors or the courts, if required.

The issue with taking this action is that it may take a considerable amount of time to bring the culprits to justice, who may utilize this delay to get off easily. It may also point as a dereliction of duty on my behalf.

2. Charge all accused with legal provisions and let the law take its own course. Here, the justice will be swift in nature and the public faith in the government and its machinery will be strengthened. Such a step would possibly avoid any controversy or blame by any party involved i.e. the culprits, media, public or the department, by taking this action. It will show the upright and strict demeanor of the administration and will send a message to prospective offenders.

But, the issue with this course of action is that it doesn’t involve thorough investigation of matter at the first place. Charging all accused without verifying the facts of the matter might weaken the case in subsequent stages. Further, since such a step doesn’t require any mandatory submission of report to the DM, who is the overall in-charge of the district excise setup, so I may

be asked by the DM to comply with the government procedures and the rules of hierarchy.

3. Being aware of the seriousness of the matter, discretely put the detailed investigation report in the public domain and expose the nexus. It may win public trust as it will show the transparent and unbiased nature of the investigation but it is not advisable to put an investigation report in public domain without the urgent need to do so. The law dictates that such a report needs to be submitted either to the superiors or to the court. Putting it in public domain may weaken any further enquiry as the culprits may use the report in public domain to cover their tracks. Additionally, pursuing such a step can amount to violation of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as well. Exposing such a nexus via this

option should be considered as a last resort measure only.

My final course of action would involve a further thorough investigation of the incident at the first place. Pending the investigation, I would recommend that such government officials who are being investigated be suspended during the course of the investigation. Then I would document all my findings into an official report, submit it to the DM and seek further actions so that justice is served in a timely manner. Such a course of action would ensure that the requisite laws and government procedures are followed in letter and spirit. Lastly, I would also provide few suggestions that can be adopted in order to avoid such a situation in the future, such as installation of CCTVs in the government stores, incentivising whistleblowers or common citizens to come forward etc.