|
|
Ruchika CaseProcess for withdrawal of Rathore’s Police Medal begins Vibha Sharma Tribune News Service New Delhi, December 26 While he confirmed that the case against former Haryana DGP SPS Rathore was being legally examined, there were reports that the Centre had initiated the process to withdraw the Police Medal given to the convicted former DGP. Home Secretary GK Pillai said the Home Ministry was taking steps to withdraw the Police Medal given to Rathore in 1985. “The matter will be placed before an award committee on January 4. Thereafter the recommendation will go to the President,” he said. “As far as other issues are concerned - reduction of pension and (his) conduct unbecoming of a police officer- show-cause notice has been initiated,” he added. The show-cause notice will ask Rathore why his medal should not be taken away and pension reduced as his conduct was unbecoming of a police officer. The 1965-batch IPS officer, who retired in 2002, was awarded the medal for meritorious service on August 15, 1985. Meanwhile, officials said the ministry had also asked for a report from the Haryana government regarding its recommendation for Rathore’s name for another medal for distinguished service in 1999. They said while the process to withdraw the medal could take around two to three months, the one to reduce his pension might take some more time.Meanwhile, amidst increasing public indignation, Hooda asserted that his government would “revisit” the entire case, while adding that full security had been provided for the Girhotra family. “As far as I am concerned, we will revisit the case. I have full sympathy for the family. I have already asked the DGP of the state to provide full security to the (Ruchika’s) family,” he said. On his meeting with CPM politburo member Brinda Karat and president of Haryana CPM Jagmati Sangwan and their demand of an independent probe into the alleged political patronage that Rathore enjoyed after being indicted in the case, Hooda said his government would legally examine the entire case.Referring to the statement made yesterday by Union Law Minister Veerappa Moily regarding revisiting the case, Hooda reiterated that the government would take necessary action only after legally examining the case. He was all praise for Aradhana and her family for pursuing the case for 19 years and bringing it to justice. Karat and Aradhana’s father had met Hooda and demanded harsher punishment for the tainted former Haryana DGP. After the meeting, Karat said they wanted “the state government to be proactive in getting the punishment enhanced (for Rathore) and reopen the case”. “We also demanded a committee (be set up) under his jurisdiction, which would go into the political patronage given to Rathore and how he got so many promotions,” she said, adding that there were two aspects of the case - criminal and political. Action should be taken against those who shielded Rathore and also his bail should be cancelled and he should be sent to jail”. Karat urged Hooda to initiate action to deny Rathore pension benefits and dismiss police officers and government officials, who filed false theft cases against Ruchika’s brother Ashu. The CPM leader said Hooda assured her that he would support reopening of the case and inclusion of criminal sections such as abetment of the teenager’s suicide after examining the case. On the independent committee to go into the political patronage that Rathore enjoyed, Karat said Hooda remained non-committal.
Rathore had no faith in the force he led Chandigarh, December 26 Rathore expressed lack of confidence in the impartiality of the Haryana Police when it was about to be asked to investigate the allegations of molestation against Rathore himself. Obviously, Rathore knew that the Haryana Police could not be trusted for its professionalism because, as it turns out, he himself had misused the force in the past to settle scores with his opponents (in this case the family of Ruchika, more so her brother Ashu, who was implicated in false auto-theft cases by certain members of the police force, who were more than willing to oblige their senior). Madhu Prakash, mother of Ruchika’s friend Anuradha, the sole witness to the misdeed of Rathore, moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court seeking directions to the state government for registering a case against Rathore in 1997. The writ was posted before Justice R.L. Anand. When Justice Anand was about to order registration of a case against Rathore, the police officer, through his counsel, expressed an apprehension that he might not get justice at the hands of the state police. Rathore’s counsel also submitted that in case the court wanted to order registration of a criminal case against Rathore, its investigation should not be handled by a police officer of the Haryana cadre, who, he said, were already determined to spoil the brilliant career of Rathore. The counsel had submitted that Rathore had a genuine apprehension that he might not be able to get an impartial investigation from the state police. In view of this apprehension of Rathore, the judge ordered the S.P., Panchkula, to register the case against Rathore and hand over its investigation to the CBI. The court also directed that the investigation would be conducted by an officer not less than the rank of a DIG, CBI, and investigation should be verified by the IG, CBI. Interestingly, while ordering the registration of an FIR against Rathore, Justice Anand relied upon a Supreme Court judgement delivered in another Haryana case, “Haryana and others versus Ch. Bhajan Lal and others”, of 1992. The apex court had held that if any information disclosing a cognizable offence was laid before an officer in charge of a police satisfying the requirements of Section 154(1) of the Cr.P.C., that police officer had no other option except to…register a case…” Justice Anand had started his judgement by saying that everybody was equal before the law. “When the rain falls, it does not see whether it is raining on the ‘Kotha’ of a poor person or on the palace of a rich man. This rule of nature has virtually been accepted under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Did ex-DGP head genuine tennis body? Chandigarh, December 26 In late 1989 or early 1990, SP Rathore and a handful of his confidants, formed Haryana Lawn Tennis Association, a parallel body with a Panchkula-based Subdivisional Engineer as its Member Secretary. They probably got their Association registered as a Society. Application moved by the Rathore-led Haryana Lawn Tennis Association was turned down by the then AILTA chief RK Khanna who ruled in favour of the Haryana tennis Association. Rathore, claimed DV Bhatia, was never associated with the Haryana Tennis Association. Even Rathore and his men tried to organise an invitation tournament in Kurukshetra. But on being rejected, the Haryana Lawn Tennis Association subsequently became defunct as no tennis player registered with the Haryana Tennis Association and the All-India tennis Association could play in any event organised by any unrecognised body or the association. DV Bhatia, who has been associated with the All-India Tennis Association for over four decades, now claims that the Haryana Tennis Association always remained on forefront in organising its state championships besides holding major invitational and open tournaments. It recently held State Championships in Ambala. “It is unfortunate that a budding tennis player and her family underwent a traumatic experience. The whole episode also unfortunately painted the Haryana Tennis in a bad light. But this has nothing to do with the activities of the Haryana Tennis Association that has been promoting the sport at the grass-root level in a fair, transparent and genuine manner discharging its duties and responsibilities with sincerity and complete dedication,” concluded DV Bhatia.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
| HOME PAGE | |
Punjab | Haryana | Jammu & Kashmir |
Himachal Pradesh | Regional Briefs |
Nation | Opinions | | Business | Sports | World | Letters | Chandigarh | Ludhiana | Delhi | | Calendar | Weather | Archive | Subscribe | Suggestion | E-mail | |
