Traffic police mum over warden’s transfer
Photo: Express
The transfer of a senior traffic warden of City Traffic Police (CTP), Rawalpindi, ostensibly over action against encroachment, has caused concern among other officers while the traffic department has failed to respond to requests to comment on the reasons behind the removal.
For many wardens, the transfer raised questions about the city and district administration’s commitment to the ongoing anti-encroachment drive.
According to traffic wardens, who spoke to The Express Tribune on the condition of anonymity, illegal occupiers return to the locations a day or two after their removal.
They said that a senior traffic warden who was posted as in-charge of the City Sector on August 12 was unceremoniously transferred from his post a few days later over ‘action against encroachers on Raja Bazaar and other major avenues’ of the city.
The warden has since written to the City Police Officer (CPO) Khalid Hamdani to order an inquiry into his removal. The CPO office said it would provide an update on the issue but had failed to do so at the time of the filing of this report.
As per the complaint, a copy of which is available with The Express Tribune, he had performed a special assignment in Muree after which he was instructed to take charge of the City Sector on August 16.
It stated that the warden had encroachment removed from various roads in the sector as they were not only illegal but also impacting the flow of traffic. The operation took place on City Sadar Road, Liaquat Road, Bara Market, Iqbal Road, Lal Haveli Road, Talwaran Bazar and Trunk Bazar Roads. The complaint added that three to four cases were also registered against those involved in illegal encroachments.
On August 22, the complaint states, the senior traffic warden went to the City police station to file a case over encroachments. However, the station house officer (SHO) told him that it was not part of the traffic warden’s mandate to to prosecute under sections 290 (public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for), 291 (continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue) and 341 (where accused does not understand proceedings) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The complaint said that he notified his senior officers of the development.
It warrants mention that in such cases, the traffic police is the complainant with the police registering the first information report (FIR) which the SHO failed to do.
The complainant continues that while the officer was on duty the next day, he saw that the encroachments had reappeared.
While he was getting them cleared, a representative of the ‘encroachment mafia’ told him to stop as he had been transferred from the post.
The complainant stated that he had not been informed of his transfer but members of ‘encroachment mafia’ were aware of it. “I have never felt so disrespected in my entire job as I did at that moment,” it continued.
It noted that this exchange was tantamount to weakening the writ of the police and strengthening the encroachment mafia.
Published in The Express Tribune, August 31st, 2023.