Lagatar24 Desk
Ranchi: In April 2024, a confidential letter addressed to the Director General of Police (DGP), Jharkhand, arrived at the state police headquarters. The letter, dated April 19, 2024, contained nine serious allegations related to procurement irregularities involving security equipment, computers, furniture, and more over the last three years.
While the DGP initially marked the letter for observation with the note: “IG (Provision), what is the matter. Put up with your observation,” the focus of senior officers soon shifted from fact-finding to identifying the sender.
What the Letter Alleged
The anonymous letter pointed out that most tenders issued in the last three years were awarded to a select few companies:
Arihant Trading Kapri Corp Life Line Security JC Michael Incorporation Additionally, a fifth company, GS Enterprises, was awarded a tender for tyre supply.
The letter further alleged that:
Obsolete computer models from as far back as 2010 were sold to Jharkhand Police at prices of new models. Major discrepancies were found in the purchase of furniture, tables, and laptops. A man named Pradeep Jain appeared to represent multiple companies, especially Arihant Trading and Kapri Corp, and was frequently seen dealing with officers inside headquarters.
Ignored Red Flags, Misplaced Priorities
Instead of initiating an inquiry into these grave allegations, police officers were more interested in discovering who sent the letter.
The letter was posted from Doranda Post Office. CCTV footage of the post office was retrieved in an attempt to identify the sender — a rare and extraordinary step for an anonymous letter.
One portion of the letter flagged an odd pattern: Every furniture-related tender over three years was awarded to the same firm, raising questions about possible favoritism or cartelisation.
Why It Matters
Despite the longstanding tendency to disregard anonymous letters, several major scams in India have historically been exposed through such whistleblower accounts.
What makes this case noteworthy is the fact that instead of checking the truth behind detailed allegations, the system appears more determined to punish or expose the sender.
This deviation from standard protocol—focusing on the messenger instead of the message—raises serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and institutional integrity in the state’s law enforcement procurement system.
