Complaints before the Commission attachment proceeding. A censure entry had been made in the confidential report of the Circle Officer, and departmental proceedings had been initiated against the three SubInspectors involved in this case. The report denied that cash and ornaments had been taken and that damage had been caused to the properties of the complainant and his family members. It was reported that during the enquiry, no evidence was found to support the involvement of the policemen in criminal activities, and they had therefore, not been prosecuted. The Commission noted that in its report, the State Government had admitted that during the course of executing the process of attachment, some 'irregularities' committed by the police had come to light. The word 'irregularities', the Commission observed, was an apologetic euphemism for wanton destruction. The Commission noted that in the successive reports of the State Government, the allegations made by the complainant about the ransacking of his house and the destruction of property have not been traversed and have been admitted, but without mentioning the extent of the damage so caused. The Commission further noted that the photographs filed along with the complaint corroborate the allegation of damage to the property. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Commission made the following observations and recommendations: □ The penalty imposed by giving a 'censure' in the service book of the Circle Officer was disproportionate to the gravity of the offences on his part. The DGP, Uttar Pradesh, was therefore, requested to review the departmental proceedings and to initiate proceedings to enhance the punishment in a manner that was commensurate with the misconduct, taking into account the gravity of misconduct. □ As there was prima facie evidence to hold that the petitioner had suffered humiliation, harassment and mental torture at the hands of the Circle Officer and three Sub-Inspectors; sustained losses owing to irregularities, admittedly committed by the police officials in the presence of a gazetted police officer while executing the process ofattachment; and keepingin view the ransacking ofarticles, destruction of property as admitted by the State Government in its report, an interim relief of Rs. 1 lakh be paid to the complainant Shri Bijendra Singh. The Commission further observed that the State Government was at liberty to initiate proceedings for the recovery of this sum from the errant officials, as their highhandedness had exposed the Government to this liability. The Commission was informed by the State Government that interim relief of Rs. 1 lakh was sanctioned by it. Harassment of a social worker by the police: Uttar Pradesh (Case No. 9646/96-97/NHRC) The Commission received a complaint from one Dr. Rajendra Prasad Pandey, a resident of Lucknow,'Uttar Pradesh, alleging that he was imprisoned for 24 hours by the local 113