Ranking cop asks court to order IGP to give ‘entitled’ promotion

A fundamental rights petition filed by a serving Senior Superintendent of Police in the Supreme Court alleging that the Inspector General of Police has repeatedly attempted to stall his career progression due to malice and personal animosity, will be heard on October 5.

SSP Lekamwasam Palitha Rohan Siriwardana, who serves in Kilinochchi, with 40 years of service, claims that the IGP had tried to transfer him arbitrarily and engaged in falsely and maliciously seeking to initiate certain inquires against him to prevent promotion.

SSP Siriwardena alleges that when the IGP tried to transfer him arbitrarily in 2016, he filed a petition in the Supreme Court where the senior state counsel who appeared on behalf of the Attorney General’s Department told the court that the transfer of any police officer above the rank of Assistant Superintend of Police is with the National Police Commission, and therefore the IGP had no jurisdiction over the transfer of a SSP. The petition was dismissed.

IGP Pujitha Jayasundara, Minister of Public Administration, Management and Law and order Ranjith Madduma Bandara, Secretary of National Police Commission, Padmasiri Jayamanna and members of the commission have been named as respondents along with the Attorney General.

SSP Siriwardana says that, due to pending vacancies and based on seniority of service, he was due to be promoted to the rank of DIG, but the IGP was engaged in various attempts to stall his promotion and initiated spurious investigations against him. Later, he wrote to the chairman of the police com- mission reiterating his concerns and requested that he be granted the promotion he was entitled to.

Alleging that the IGP had tried to fabricate corruption charges against him to stop career promotions, SSP Siriwardana says the IGP had tried to implicate him in accepting a bribe, or gift, from Nissanka Senadhipathi, who was then chairman of the Avant Garde Company.

SSP Siriwardana alleges that the IGP had sought assistance from the Special Investigations Division of the Police to investigate him regarding the fabricated story of accepting a bribe from Mr Senadhipathi, who is a childhood friend. The IGP had even instructed officials to make a complaint against him to the Commission to Investigate Allegations of Bribery and Corruption.

SSP Siriwardana claims that, on many occasions, police officers had sought contributions from Mr Senadhipathi for various social and community activities of the police department.

As there are no disciplinary proceedings, or inquires against him in any court of law, SSP Siriwardana says he was reliably informed that the police commission has promoted him to the rank of acting DIG along with four other officers, but the IGP had failed to give effect to the decision on the basis of pending investigations against him.

He was informed in June that the IGP had forwarded two draft charge sheets against him to the police commission, but the commission had decided not to issue charges against him. The commission had also upheld its decision despite many written instructions given by the IGP.

Arguing that the IGP had no power over appointments, promotions and transfers, SSP Siriwardana believes that the failure to give effect to the police commission directive is a violation of his fundamental rights.

SSP Siriwardena alleges that the IGP’s conduct is motivated by malice.

He says that repeated attempts by the IGP to harass him and denigrate his professional reputation by unfairly and arbitrarily persecuting him through his office, amounts to a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 11 of the Constitution.

SSP Siriwardena is asking court to order the IGP and police commission officials to give effect to the decision taken by the commission to promote him, while declaring that his fundamental rights were infringed by the IGP.