The Curious Case of the IPS Officer, Her Leaves, and a Withdrawn DGP Order in Himachal

In what turned out to be a short-lived but remarkably intriguing episode within the Himachal Pradesh Police, an order issued by the state's top cop, Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Kundu, stirred quite a bit of chatter before being unceremoniously retracted. The directive, dated April 27, 2024, aimed to address the frequent leaves taken by IPS officer Shristi Pandey, who serves as the Assistant Superintendent of Police (ASP) for Cyber Crime.

Now, here's where it gets interesting: the order explicitly assigned ASP Amit Thakur, from the CID, to cover Pandey's duties during her absences. What made this particular instruction raise eyebrows, you ask? Well, it's pretty unusual for a DGP to name a specific subordinate to fill in for another officer, especially one on leave. Most often, such responsibilities are handled by officers within the same unit or through general departmental arrangements.

The original order didn't mince words, citing the IPS officer's "frequent absence" from duty as the primary reason for this unusual arrangement. It even went so far as to direct Thakur to take on the Cyber Crime unit's responsibilities while Pandey was away. This immediately struck many in the police force as a bit out of the ordinary, perhaps even a public slight, given the specific naming and the explicit mention of her leave history.

However, the life of this controversial order was rather brief. Just five days later, on May 2, 2024, DGP Kundu himself withdrew the directive. The official reason cited was "procedural irregularities." It seems the initial approach, while perhaps well-intentioned to ensure continuity of work, didn't quite align with established administrative protocols or the usual chain of command, particularly as Thakur was from a different branch altogether – CID, not Cyber Crime.

Following the withdrawal, DGP Kundu clarified his stance, explaining that the original order wasn't meant as a punitive measure or a disciplinary action against Pandey. Instead, he emphasized that the core intention was to prevent a backlog of work and ensure that public services didn't suffer due to an officer's repeated absences. He highlighted the importance of work continuing seamlessly, regardless of an individual's leave status.

For her part, Shristi Pandey had been taking a mix of medical and casual leaves. While officers are, of course, entitled to their leaves, the frequency in this instance, coupled with the critical nature of cyber crime duties, appears to have prompted the DGP's initial, albeit ultimately reversed, intervention. It sparked a broader conversation within the police establishment about how best to manage officer leaves, ensure operational efficiency, and maintain proper administrative decorum.

Ultimately, this little episode serves as a fascinating glimpse into the administrative challenges faced by large organizations, even within a disciplined force like the police. It underscores the delicate balance between individual entitlements, the smooth functioning of public services, and the adherence to established protocols – a balance that sometimes, as we've seen, requires a bit of an adjustment.