Roopa did the right thing the wrong way, say retd IPS officers

Several retired IPS officers have criticised DIG (Prisons) D Roopa for violating the service rules and not showing “officer-like qualities”. They, however, appreciated her concern to expose corruption in the Central Prison at Parappana Agrahara.

“Roopa’s intention of curbing illegal activities in prisons should be praised,” said H T Sangliana, a former DGP (Prisons). “She took up the issue on her own. But she shouldn’t have violated the service rules.”

According to him, she should have approached the Home Secretary if her boss failed to act upon her report. 

“She could have used her powers as DIG to crack down on illegal activities in the prison. She should be applauded if she manages to prove the accusations. But if she fails, she will lose the battle,” Sangliana said.

A former DGP, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “It’s not the issues, but the channel she chose for the redress of her grievances that matters.” He considered Roopa’s act of submitting a report to the state police chief, the Home Secretary and the ACB, and going to the media a violation of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968. “A DIG shouldn’t be impulsive. She should have used official channels to sort out the issues,” he said.

A former IGP pointed out the technical errors committed by Roopa. “The Prisons Department is an independent wing of the criminal justice system and is headed by a DGP. The state police chief (DG&IGP) and the ACB are in no way connected to the Prisons Department. Any report by a subordinate officer should be submitted to the DGP (Prisons), not external authorities.” He said Roopa could have approached other authorities in the event of the DGP (Prisons) ignoring her report.

Retired officials said corruption was rampant in prisons across India and that drugs was a global phenomenon. 

A source close to Roopa said she did submit the report to her boss, DGP (Prisons) H S Sathyanarayana Rao, before sharing it with the DG&IGP, the Home Secretary and the ACB, considering the possibility that there would be no action on her findings.