Dhananjay Gokhale | Project Management Mentor
Prakalpataru
facebook  Linkedin
PMI REP Logo
Balutedar 11 - Inspector General of Police : Mr. Pramod Shripad Phalnikar

Charge Sheet against an Inspector General of Police

Based on the interview conducted by Dhananjay Gokhale on 25th January 2015. Filed by Abhijeet Pendharkar | For DVDs write to gita@dgonline.in

THE ACCUSED Mr. Pramod Shripad Phalnikar
DESIGNATION Inspector General of Police [This is equivalent to a ‘Major General’ in the military & is third level from the top in police hierarchy]
WITNESS Bunch of enthusiastic audience

As an outcome of an interview with the accused, conducted by Dhananjay Gokhale, on 25th Jan 15, between 1050 hrs to 1300 hrs, following is the list of charges levelled against the accused.

Charge 1 Premise: Police “Bandobast”
Charge 1.1: It has been observed that the accused is in habit of ensuring very effective police arrangements (“bandobast”) during public events. This habitual act of the accused is highly demotivating & demoralising for the miscreants in our society.
Charge 1.2: The accused has strong reservations about having to deploy police force for events like ‘Katrina Kaif Night”. This constitutes gross disrespect on his part towards art & culture.
Charge 1.3: The accused reprimanded actress/singer Eela Arun for provoking spectators to dance with her steps on ‘Choli ke piche kya hai’ tune. That can be construed as direct violation of the freedom of expression.
Charge 1.4: The accused ensured that potential militants were not able to carry weapons inside Wankhede Stadium, Mumbai during ICC Cricket World cup finals. The militants might have been forced to watch the match instead & hence the accused stands liable to settle any claim(s) from the militants for waste of their efforts & time.
All Charges under: Sections 11.2, 11.3, 11.5 & 11.6 of the PMBOK (Anticipating, planning & managing risks)

Charge 2 Premise: Stress & Anger Management
Charge 2.1: The accused believes that the best way to handle stress is to have a conviction that ‘someone takes me through all the problems if I am sincere, honest & hard working’. This amounts to stating only half-truth because what the accused failed to mention was ‘if I am NOT honest, someone that would put me in all sorts of problems would be the police’.
Charge 2.2: The accused did not hesitate to put on records that anger management is difficult for the police. Possible reasons cited by the accused were: Police witness lots of negativity every day; There is heavy pressure on them to somehow find the guilty; Public have unrealistic expectations from the police possibly due to influence of popular cinema; Problems with police are same as those of society etc. The accused has intentionally tried to hurt our feelings by directly telling us to introspect &behave ourselves. If we are to behave ourselves, what would we need police for?
All Charges under: Section 9.4 of the PMBOK (Human Resource Management, handling conflicts)

Charge 3 Premise: Informants [Khabaris or Mukhbirs]
Charge 3.1: The accused prefers mixing with general public on a regular basis. He believes this to be one of the very effective ways of developing network of informants. This miss-adventurous behaviour of the accused, however, exerts undue pressure on some officers who are used to sitting in their air-conditioned offices.
Charge 3.2: The accused eradicated wide spread public gambling in Jaora & Indore in Madhya Pradesh with effective use of his network of informants. However brave this act may seem prima-facie, the accused cannot deny the fact that he gambled his own life to finish off public gambling.
Charge 3.3: The accused does not allow anyone to be an informant just like that. He takes a very careful look at possible motives behind the person wanting to work as informant (motives such as family destroyed by alcohol/drugs). This is clear violation of terms of equal opportunities employment.
All Charges under: Sections9, 10 & 13 of the PMBOK (HR, Communication & Stakeholders Management)

Charge 4 Premise: Encounters, Shootings, Killings
Charge 4.1: The accused led a team of policemen into the deep, dark & dangerous jungles of Balaghat & fought a fierce battle with a group of Naxalites. That was a clear case of gross negligence from the accused towards physical & mental safety of the wild animals in the Balaghat jungle.
Charge 4.2: When asked ‘Are you not afraid (of death)?’ the accused cited a statement carved on the walls of police academy – “Courage is not absence of fear, but deliberate management of fear”. It means during moments of crisis, your head is in place, your abilities are with you & help is around. The PMBOK Code of Best Practices, however, requires that the accused be very specific & precise about whether it is a Yes or No [Whether he gets afraid or not].
Charge 4.3: The accused has already admitted that he does not think while pulling the trigger. A separate show-cause-notice is being served to the accused demanding an explanation as to who does the MFC (Monitoring, Forecasting & Controlling) during executions then?
Charge 4.4: When asked ‘What is more threatening: terrorism or politics?’ the accused answered ‘Politics of terrorism is more threatening’. This great punch line only highlights that the accused has committed a very serious crime of not writing any book on his experiences so far.
All Charges under: Section 4.3 of the PMBOK (Direct & Manage Execution)

Charge 5 Premise: Professional Competencies
Charge 5.1: While answering the question about competencies, the accused explicitly stated that his profession developed a confidence in him of being able to handle any type of situation & that he is easily accessible & that he is straightforward & honest in communication with people. However, there was a gap between what he explicitly said & what he implied [‘one cannot blindly trust everyone’, ‘informants in drugs trafficking are seasoned, they play both sides, they can manage you’]
All Charges under: Section6.4, 9.1, 10.1 of the PMBOK (Resource Requirements, Soft Skills or Behavioural Competencies &Communication requirements)

Testimony to the fact that all the acts, as alleged above, are committed by the accused are various medals, honours & accolades conferred upon the accused. To name a few: “UN Peace Medal”, “Indira Gandhi Sampradayak Suraksha Award”, “Police Medal for Meritorious Service” & “President’s Medal for Distinguished Service”.

OBVIOUSLY, CASE DISMISSED!

order