Arbitrary punishments do not ensure discipline

LAHORE:

Black’s Law Dictionary defines arbitrariness in punishment as “when punishment is left to a judge to make a decision as opposed to being prescribed by statute.”

This arbitrariness has been often complained about by subordinates in police department. Aziz Khan, a former DSP who is currently practicing as a lawyer, has written several articles about the issue. He has also described the internal scenarios of orderly rooms of senior police officers. Khan says that the mechanism of punishments in the police is so arbitrary that the punishments vary according to the mood of an officer. If the officer’s mood is good, the subordinate is either spared or given a minor punishment. If his mood is bad, the punishment is severe along with humiliation.

This arbitrariness has served no purpose when it comes to reformation and accountability of Punjab Police.

The official data of Punjab Police Internal Accountability Branch shows that on average 60,000 police personnel are punished every year.

At least 301,757 police officers from the rank of constable to ASP were found guilty of misconduct or misuse of authority in inquiries between 2014 and 2018.

In 2014, 59,164 police officials, including 30,325 constables, 3,557 head constables, 10,121 ASIs, 13,269 SIs, 1,840 inspectors and 52 DSPs and ASPs were handed down punishments.

In 2015, the figure remained almost the same as 57,318 members of the force, including 31,679 constables, 3,030 head constables, 10,013 ASIs, 10,382 SIs, 2,162 inspectors and 52 DSPs and ASPs were held accountable in internal inquiries.

In 2016, a total of 61,422 policemen, including 35,348 constables, 4,262 head constables, 9,834 ASIs, 10,022 SIs, 1,886 inspectors and 70 DSPs and ASPs were found guilty of violations. The continued violations saw no respite in 2017 as 64,458 personnel, including 36,395 constables, 3,773 head constables, 12,151 ASIs, 10,077 SIs, 1,792 inspectors and 270 DSPs and ASPs were found guilty.

The trend prevailed in 2018 as at least 36,620 constables, 3,913 head constables, 9,887 ASIs, 7,249 SIs, 1,572 inspectors and 154 DSPs and ASPs were found guilty.

The commanders of Punjab Police after realising the flaws tried to introduce reforms in the internal accountability mechanism.

Former inspector general Shoib Dastagir introduced a discipline matrix according to which a subordinate was supposed to be given punishment. He also introduced a system under which if an officer gave a punishment in violation of the discipline matrix, a high alert was to be issued on the dashboard of the additional IG establishment. Such officers were supposed to be questioned about the punishment.

The new Capital City Police Officer (CCPO), Umer Sheikh, seems to be deviating from this policy.

He has drawn criticism for his harsh action against subordinates. In a short span of time, he has issued orders of registration of FIRs and putting behind bar several police officials for negligence and misuse of authority. An inspector, a sub-inspector and a head constable have openly questioned his punishments and also submitted applications against him.

In an interview, the CCPO has proposed “court martial” of policemen and also quoted a law that provides legal grounds to proceed further. Sheikh says that punishments like fine, censure, suspension, dismissal and forfeiture of service have failed to ensure accountability in the force because of the higher interests involved.

Sheikh is right in his view that the prevalent accountability mechanism has failed to ensure discipline. Such a huge number of punishments, 60,000 on average every year, that is every third cop, also affirms his assertion.

However, the proposal of introducing a system that is based on even more arbitrariness is not going to bear any results. There are several examples in history showing that harsh punishments have backfired many a times.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 2^nd, 2020.