Unwarranted harassment and abuse of citizens, unnecessary interference in civil disputes not under his jurisdiction, the threatening of a criminal case witness, and the overlooking of judicial procedures — these are a few among the 18 charges that former Inspector of Police NG Sreemon, dismissed from service last year, was found guilty of by the Kerala High Court. The officer, however, has now been reinstated in service, his punishment reduced from “dismissal” to “withholding his next three increments with cumulative effect”, in the wake of a recommendation by ADGP (Law & Order) Vijay Sakhare. In the order dated August 19, the ADGP has observed that when the 18 charges are taken separately, “all of them are minor charges which will attract minor penalty only”.
The complaints against Sreemon had first come to light in 2020, when Babychan Varkey, a native of Udumbannoor in Idukki, approached the Kerala High Court alleging harassment at the hands of the officer, who was the then Circle Inspector of Thodupuzha. The HC had ordered an inquiry into the matter, and subsequently called for an immediate suspension of the officer until the completion of the inquiry, based on two reports by the Inspector General of Police (Vigilance and Anti Corruption Bureau) and Additional Director General Police (Intelligence Wing). With the reports finding that Sreemon had on various occasions unnecessarily assaulted, insulted and/or threatened people, his continuation as a police officer in the Kerala Police Department was a threat to the public and enforcement of law, the HC observed.
Later, after a detailed probe found that 18 out of the 30 charges levelled against Sreemon were true, he was formally dismissed from service in February last year. The officer soon filed an appeal, based on which ADGP Sakhare scrutinised the charges against him and issued a recommendation seeking a reduction in his punishment.
“In view of minor delinquencies, I feel that the punishment of dismissal from service is excessive and too harsh. I feel that punishment … is disproportionate to the nature of delinquency. Keeping in mind the facts that the delinquent belongs to a socially weak community and is the sole breadwinner of the family, punishment of dismissal will be catastrophic for his family. Hence taking the nature of delinquencies into account and keeping the condition of his family in mind, I reduce the punishment of “dismissal from Service to withholding his next three increments with cumulative effect” (sic),” the ADGP stated in the order.
Here is the list of the 18 charges proved against Sreemon, considered “minor” by the ADGP:
1. On July 16, 2016, while Sreemon was working as the Inspector of Police in Thodupuzha Police Station, Sub Inspector Vijayakumar brought in A* to the police Station, undressed him except for his underwear, and manhandled him. After hearing his cry, Sreemon too beat up the detenu.
2. On July 7, 2018, Sreemon arrested B*, an accused in a Negotiable Instruments Act case, even though he was with his advocate to apply for bail before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Thodupuzha.
3. On November 14, 2017, Sreemon arrested C*, the second accused in a case under IPC Sections 420 ad 34, leading to his remand him in judicial custody for 44 days. The case was later quashed by the Kerala High Court of Kerala, which observed that the case is of civil nature.
4. On August 23, 2016, Sreemon unnecessarily abused and threatened a platform vendor near Gandhi Square, Thodupuzha, besides manhandling his son when he questioned him.
5. On October 15, 2016, Sreemon received a complaint from D* regarding the loss of a parcel sent from abroad by post. The officer summoned the Postal Assistant and Postman of Thodupuzha East Sub Post Office to the station, threatened and compelled them to give Rs 8,000 as compensation to D*, despite there being legal remedies to redress the grievance.
6. On August 2, 2016, Sreemon played an instrumental role in blocking a road, even as the use of the same road was under the consideration of a Civil Court. He also abused a woman who tried to question his act.
7. While he was the Thodupuzha Inspector of Police, Sreemon unnecessarily interfered in a civil matter that took place within the jurisdictional area of Karimannoor Police Station, under the pretext of a complaint he had directly received from E* against Babychan.
8. As the Thodupuzha Inspector of Police, Sreemon also got involved in a civil matter regarding the settlement of damage to a rented car. He summoned the parties to the station, though the accident happened outside his jurisdictional area, and threatened the counter petitioner to pay the damage to the owner.
9. On November 7, 2018, when the teachers of Perumpally UP School challenged the dumping of building waste and rusty stings on the road leading to the school, Sreemon publicly abused and threatened F*, one of the teachers assembled there.
10. As the Thodupuzha Inspector of Police, Sreemon insulted and threatened a duty doctor in Thodupuzha District Hospital, when she referred the post mortem of the body of a 19-year-old girl to a police surgeon.
11. On July 21, 2018, Sreemon abused, harassed and detained one of the sureties to the second accused in a crime, when the latter came to the station with the accused as per the bail order issued by the Kerala HC.
12. On July 11, 2018, Sreemon summoned a witness in a crime of the Muttam Police Station, and abused, insulted and threatened him.
13. On September 17, 2017, Sreemon unnecessarily used force to effect the arrest of an accused from his house. He also abused the son and daughter of the accused.
14. As the Thodupuzha Inspector of Police, Sreemon unnecessarily compelled the first and second accused to settle the case with the complainant.
15. On June 1, 2018, Sreemon unnecessarily interfered in a complaint concerning a financial matter and threatened the parties to compromise, despite directions from the Police Headquarters that the police shall not interfere in civil matters.
16. On July 26, 2018, Sreemon summoned both parties (G* and H*) involved in a civil matter and interfered with the financial dealings. Further, when G complained about the sexual abuse of the husband of H under the promise of marriage, no legal action was initiated.
17. On September 23, 2016, Sreemon (then the Thodupuzha Inspector of Police) summoned I* to the station, and abused and insulted him and his family members, in connection with a civil matter beyond his jurisdiction.
18. On December 13, 2016, Sreemon unnecessarily got involved in a financial dispute regarding the construction of a house, summoned the parties to the police station, abused, and threatened a person.
When asked about Sreemon’s reinstatement, ADGP Sakhare told TNM that the order was issued based on the appeal filed by [Sreemon]. “It is all part of an administrative process based on facts,” he said.
Meanwhile, advocate Harish Vasudevan said that Sreemon has now rejoined service as the Circle Inspector of the Crime Branch in Kasaragod. “Earlier, the HC had rejected a report filed by then IG Vijay Sakhare exonerating Sreemon, and sought another report from Venkatesh (Directorate of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption). Now, the same Sakhare is the appellate authority after becoming the ADGP, and he hears the case. There has been a serious procedural lapse and bias in favour of [Sreemon]. This process itself has been an eyewash. If there is a rule of law in the country, the state should be held accountable for issuing such an order,” he said.
(*Names hidden to protect identity)