A parliamentary panel has observed a disparity in district postings in the Delhi Police and said DANIPS officers should also be considered for posts of district DCPs as their have a "richer experience" than IPS recruits.
The committee was also informed that the annual confidential reports (ACRs) of inspectors were written by DCP-rank officers with little or no involvement of assistant commissioners of police (ACPs) or additional DCPs at the district level.
On the other hand, the ACRs of ACPs were written by additional DCP-I or additional DCP-II rank officers.
"The committee finds it an anomalous situation, wherein the ACRs of lower ranked officers such as inspectors are being written by DCPs and that of higher ranked officers like ACPs are being written by additional DCPs," the report said.
The panel said it felt "astonished" to "observe this unique system" currently existing in the Delhi Police.
It opined that such a system creates "lacuna thereby weakening the direct control and supervision of ACPs over inspectors".
The committee recommended that ACP-rank officers should be empowered to write ACRs of inspectors and deputy commissioner of police (DCP)-rank officers act as a reviewing authority.
It also expressed concern that there is disparity in district and unit postings in Delhi of Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Services (DANIPS) officers promoted as IPS vis-a-vis Indian Police Service (IPS) recruits because DANIPS officers as DCP are considered less for postings in districts.
The parliamentary panel expressed surprise that in district postings as DCP, IPS officers are dominating in all 14 districts - 13 IPS officers are posted as DCP as compared to only one DANIPS promotee IPS as DCP.
Similarly at the additional DCP level, 10 IPS officers are posted as additional DCP-I whereas only four DANIPS promoted as IPS officers are posted as additional DCP-I.
The committee also noted that at the additional DCP-II level, seven IPS have been posted and seven DANIPS promoted IPS officers are posted as additional DCP-II.
It opined that even though direct IPS recruits are higher in seniority, "the pool of experience of DANIPS officers is much richer" because most of DANIPS officers work as ACP or additional DCP for a longer duration as compared to IPS officers at district or unit levels in Delhi.
The Delhi police commissioner submitted that the solution to this will be discussed with the Home Ministry and wherever some changes are required in the law, a suggestion will be sent to the ministry.
The committee recommended that the ministry should work in tandem with the Delhi Police and look in to the viability of prescribing a fixed ratio for district postings at additional DCP and DCP level of DANIPS officers promoted as IPS officers so as maintain a balance for ensuring that a large pool of experience available with DANIPS officers can be utilised for better law and order management.
It also directed that there should be uniformity in the induction of DANIPS officers into IPS in accordance with their seniority.
The committee also observed that the appointment year of DANIPS officers is calculated from the year in which they join the service for training, which usually starts late, after a gap of one year, and affects their seniority adversely.
However, in the case of IPS officers, they join service within the year in which the results are declared.
The committee recommended that in the case of DANIPS officers also, the result year should be taken as the year of counting for seniority, irrespective of the date of joining for training.
It expressed disappointment at the delay being caused in upgrading the current training facilities being provided to personnel and recommended that the ministry to take necessary steps to expedite the matter.
However, it appreciated the efforts being made by the Delhi Police to provide latest infrastructural facilities and training techniques to its trainees.
(This story has not been edited by Business Standard staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)