‘Chattopadhyaya’s report is his own, not of the drug case SIT’
CHANDIGARH: In fighting in Punjab Police recently came out in the open after a director general of police (DGP)-rank officer, S Chattopadhyaya, levelled allegations that he was also probing the “role” of the state police chief, DGP Suresh Arora, and DGP (intelligence) Dinkar Gupta in a drug-related case. He made the claim as a member of a special investigation team (SIT) formed by the high court to probe the role of Moga SSP Raj Jit Singh in a case in which since-dismissed inspector Inderjit Singh was arrested. This even embarrassed the state government.
On May 8, when this SIT submitted its report in the case with the court, Chattopadhyaya filed another report alongside the SIT’s sealed findings. But the second report was not signed by the other two members of the SIT, ADGP Parbodh Kumar and IGP Kunwar Vijay Partap Singh. As the court is scheduled to hear the case on July 25, HT talked to Kunwar Vijay Partap about the controversies.
DGP Chattopadhyaya filed a report alongside the SIT’s sealed findings to the HC; what is this second report all about ?
I only know that the SIT report submitted by us in the court is signed by all the three members. If anyone has filed a different report, it cannot be termed as SIT findings. Formally or informally, I am not a party to the second report. The other two members (ADGP Kumar and I) were not even aware that any such report is being filed in the court. If someone is trying to use his position for personal vendetta or rivalry, I cannot be a part of it. I have always stood with facts and proofs. We prepared this report while sitting in Sir’s (Chattopadhyaya’s) office. But we were not aware if he had prepared a second document as well.
In the affidavit filed in the high court on April 6, Chattopadhyaya said that while probing Raj Jit’s role in a drug case, he got ‘serious pointers’ towards role of DGP Suresh Arora and DGP (intelligence) Dinkar Gupta. Were you aware of this?
We in the SIT got to know about this affidavit through media reports. Our senior colleague (Chattopadhyaya) never shared such findings, if any, with us. Even in our meetings after these accusations, no such information was shared with us. The SIT filed first two interim reports in the court on February 1 and March 15. Till that time, the senior member was all OK with the probe.
Did you or the third member of the SIT ask Chattopadhyaya about his ‘disclosures’ in HC?
We tried to ask (him) about the basis of these accusations in the very next meeting, as an impression was given that he made the accusations as the head of the SIT. But he replied that his accusation is based on ‘top secret’ and ‘personal’ information. This compelled us to feel that a parallel investigation was being done by the seniormost member of the SIT. We repeatedly requested him to share any such information. But he did not.
What was the mandate of SIT?
The high court ordered us to find out the complicity, if any, of Raj Jit with Inderjit. Our report is based on this mandate only. I have remained member of more than 120 SITs formed by courts or governments, but not even in one has the mandate been bypassed by any member. If there were any pointers against anybody in the probe, that should have come on record in the SIT, and the SIT should have summoned them to probe their roles. If there was anything incriminating against anybody beyond the probe, he (Chattopadhyaya) should have shared it with the other two members. It is beyond my imagination why he had no trust in the other members appointed by the court.
As police were also investigating Chattopadhyaya’s alleged role in the suicide of Inderpreet Chadha, son of former Chief Khalsa Diwan chairman, he claimed he was being framed in that case as he was investigating role of two DGPs in the drug case. Did he share it with you and the third member?
When this issue cropped up, despite being a junior officer I asked him if he really thinks that he is being framed in the suicide case. I told him that in such a scenario the SIT members will help him and make a representation to the DGP and home secretary in his favour. But he remained mum on the issue inside the SIT. When he moved court, I stopped discussing the issue as his accusations were beyond our imagination. It was unfortunate that the media raised the issue as ‘DGP vs DGPs’, and the issue maligned the image of our proud force.
What are SIT findings against Raj Jit in the drug case?
I cannot share that; the SIT has submitted the report to the court in a sealed cover.