New Delhi: Since police stations form the cutting edge of public handling and service delivery, the Vigilance Unit of Delhi Police deputes its officers to conduct surprise checks of various police stations in Delhi in order to check whether or not police personnel are delivering services to the satisfaction of the public they interface with. Even though this practice was followed earlier, from September, 2014 onwards it has been further streamlined to make it more focused and purposeful.
Every month a particular theme of checking is chosen by the Special Commissioner of Police, Vigilance, and ACsP/Inspectors of Vigilance Unit visit police stations by surprise to check the efficiency of service delivery in relation to that theme.
Some of the themes chosen are as under:-
Response to complainants in registered FIR cases.
Behaviour with complainants visiting PS to lodge their complaint.
Response to complainants in kidnapping/missing cases.
Response to complainants in rape/molestation cases.
Promptness in registration and investigation of cases of M.V.theft.
Handling of investigation of kidnapping & POCSO Act cases.
In order to gauge the efficiency of police response and the extent of public satisfaction:
Decoy complainants are sent to police stations.
Complainants in FIR cases are directly spoken to by the Vigilance officer.
Police Station records are scrutinized by the officer.
On an average, every month about 50 police stations are checked. From September, 2014 onwards (upto June-2015), so far 480 surprise checks of police stations have been made.
On the basis of such checks, the Vigilance Unit identifies defaulting police personnel for any act of negligence, omission or commission. So far 28 such police personnel have been short-listed and the Vigilance Unit has recommended disciplinary action against them to the concerned district DCP.
An analysis of defaults detected shows that public complainants unsatisfied with the police action mostly complain about the following:-
Reluctance to furnish the progress/copy of FIR.
Response not timely.
Lack of adequate efforts in investigation.
A few instances of harassment to complainants by asking to wait, make photocopy, arrange conveyance etc.
However, no serious misdemeanour or complaint of bribery has come to notice so far during these checks.
Among the 28 defaulting police personnel, 4 SHOs have also been identified for unsatisfactory supervision, in the more serious instances of default by the police station staff.