SHILLONG, Aug 26: Chief Minister Conrad Sangma’s rubbishing of the police inquiry report has created a stir in the Police department. They are all asking: “Who is protecting the AIG (Administration) GK Iangrai and why when the investigation into alleged abuse of vehicle procurement procedures all point at serious irregularities?”
A retired DGP even stated, “If I was the DGP I would never have allowed such a thing to happen, much less for it to carry on for nearly three years.”
A senior police official said, “Ordinarily, the supply branch keeps stock of things which are procured by the police headquarters (PHQ) through government sanctioned funds.
During the tenure of former Director-general of Police R Chandranathan and AIG (A) Iangrai things became centralised and the two became procurement agents, stocking agents and distributors. The process of a line committee which is there to physically inspect the stock was totally bypassed. This is how procurement to the tune of over Rs 6 crore was done but no stock was found during the inquiry. So where is all that stock?” he queried.
It is learnt that Iangrai has said he cannot appear before the inquiry committee as he is sick but all his subordinates have given in writing that everything was managed by him. The question now is why is the Police department reluctant to search Iangrai’s house and farmhouse? Are they waiting for orders from the political masters and contractors?
A senior officer went to the point of asking, “Since when has criminal investigation become the mistress of political masters? If a constable or sub-inspector had committed such criminal acts would the Home department still be reading and analysing the report? Would they not have immediately suspended him/her by now? Besides, suspension is not a punishment. It is merely to insulate the inquiry or investigation from external influence. In this case a very powerful person who despite facing such criminal charges is given a plum posting. At whose behest is this happening?”
Questions have also been raised as to what is the Vigilance department doing and why the Chief Secretary has not yet filed a separate vigilance case? Again and again the question that arises is – who is protecting Iangrai and why?
A senior official told this reporter that he had approached Home Minister Lahkmen Rymbui some time ago and pointed out that the free hand given to Iangrai could land the department in trouble but the Home minister took no action. Or perhaps was not allowed to take action.
Nearly all police officers spoken to are of the opinion that concentration of power entails concentration of liability and in this case only two people are responsible – the former DGP (Chandranathan) and Iangrai since all other top brass of PHQ were by-passed.
It may be pertinent to note that during the farewell programme of the former DGP (Chandranathan) at MLP 2nd Battalion, a leading vehicle vendor from Shillong was felicitated. It was the first time that a businessman or contractor had been felicitated publicly by the state police.
