New Delhi: A young IPS probationer, Umesh Kumar, who was discharged from service two years ago for calling his scheduled caste batch-mate “Chamar” has lost his last legal battle for leniency in the supreme court.
Umesh Kumar (27) joined the IPS in 1987 and was discharged from service on October 23, 1989, under rule 12 of the IPS probationers’ rules, 1954, by the home ministry on the allegation of his colleague, Sunil Kumar, that the former had called him a “Chamar”. Belonging to the Bihar cadre, Umesh Kumar had moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) at Patna challenging his removal from the IPS. But the CAT dismissed his petition on Nov. 15 last.
It is all in joke: While seeking relief from the CAT, Umesh Kumar’s counsel had pleaded that “he is in the period of adolescence and maturity is only dawning on him. As such, these were jokes without any sting, which are usual among youngster. Such a hard decision would make the young probationer weep for life.” Later, he moved the supreme court seeking leniency and reinstatement in service. But the two judge bench comprising Justice K.J. Shetty and Justice Yogeshwar Daya dismissed his appeal on April 26. Among other grounds that the petitioner had raised before the apex court was that “this is a case where the petitioner is discharged from service for allegedly calling a Chamar a Chamar.” (Times of India April. – 30).
Literal Insult: The judgement highlights the acuteness of caste sensitivity in the Hindi heartland. The case reflects the fact that the echelons of bureaucracy are not insulated from the commonest of social prejudices. More Important is what was revealed by the legal, or rather legalistic, defense put forward by the probationer’s counsel who claimed that the petitioner is “in a period of adolescence”, a weak argument indeed. The counsel added that the petitioner after all only called “a Chamar a Chamar”. It would appear that the petitioner was penalized for his literal-minded truthfulness. The judges, however, seem to think differently.
As a matter of fact, caste terminology, despite its rigidities, has place for harmless bantering, none of which however is accessible to the lowest castes. This alone ensures that words like “Chamar” would be powerfully double-edged. Banter remains harmless only when it is a two-way process. Although it should be possible to sanitize such terms in descriptive use, it needs no saying that they are often employed to hurt and demean. The moral of the episode may be that there is a difference between the literal and pretending to be literal, even when the laws cannot strictly tell one from the other. (Times of India, May 5).
