Kolkata Police has introduced a new code of conduct for civic volunteers, including a step-by-step response when a volunteer remains absent from duty without notice. The move, reported after the arrest of a Kolkata Police traffic sergeant and a woman civic volunteer in a murder case in Jharkhand, brings renewed attention to how an auxiliary policing workforce is supervised and held accountable.
According to the report by Bartaman Patrika – Kolkata, the code was introduced by Kolkata Police Commissioner Ajay Nanda on 17 September. It requires authorities to issue a WhatsApp notice if a civic volunteer remains absent from the assigned workplace for seven days without notice. If there is no response seven days after the first notice, a second notice must be sent. If the volunteer still does not respond, the person is to be removed from duty, or “satিয়ে দেওয়া” in the report’s description.
The sequence creates a 14-day administrative window before action is taken against a volunteer who remains absent and does not respond to either notice. The report says the code has been issued in both Bengali and English. That detail is significant because the rule is intended to function across a large operational workforce in a city where instructions, attendance records and disciplinary communication must be understood consistently at the field level.
The immediate context is the Jharkhand murder case. The report says a sergeant from Kolkata Police’s Beleghata Traffic Guard and a woman civic volunteer were arrested in connection with the case. It does not provide details of the allegations, the investigation or the precise roles attributed to those arrested. Those facts therefore cannot be used to draw conclusions about the wider civic-volunteer system. What can be established from the report is that the arrests preceded the introduction of the new conduct code and that sections of the Kolkata Police view the timing as significant.
The new rules are primarily an attendance and administrative-control mechanism. They do not, in the available report, set out a broader framework covering recruitment, training, deployment, supervision, use of authority or criminal accountability. That distinction matters. A notice procedure can clarify what happens when a person is absent, but it does not by itself explain how an auxiliary worker is monitored while on duty or how responsibility is assigned when an incident involves personnel operating alongside the regular police force.
For cities, the question is not only whether personnel report for work. It is also how public institutions maintain reliable records of who is deployed, where they are posted and who is responsible for supervising them. Civic volunteers operate in public-facing environments, including traffic management and other duties connected with police operations. Their conduct can therefore affect citizens’ everyday interaction with the state, even when their formal status differs from that of regular police personnel.
The code’s use of WhatsApp notices points to a digitally mediated disciplinary process. The report does not say whether the notices will be accompanied by formal attendance registers, delivery confirmations, escalation records or an appeal mechanism. It also does not state whether the code specifies who must issue the notices, how the seven-day absence period is calculated or what happens if a volunteer is unable to respond because of illness, travel, communication failure or another documented reason. These operational details will determine how consistently the rule works in practice.
The numbers in the reported procedure are clear: seven days of absence triggers the first notice, another seven days without a response triggers the second notice, and continued non-response leads to removal from duty. The framework is therefore built around a fixed timeline rather than immediate disciplinary action. That may give the administration a documented process before taking action, while also making the record of communication central to any later decision.
However, the report does not establish how many civic volunteers are covered by the code, how many have previously faced disciplinary action for unauthorised absence or whether attendance-related problems were widespread. It also does not identify the administrative order, circular or published document through which the code was issued. The reported bilingual publication indicates an effort to communicate the rules, but the available material does not allow an assessment of its legal status or enforcement arrangements.
The timing gives the measure an additional institutional dimension. A rule introduced soon after arrests involving a police sergeant and a civic volunteer may be intended to reassure the organisation that personnel working in or around police operations remain subject to clear controls. Yet the stated content of the code, as reported, focuses on absence and non-response. It does not show whether Kolkata Police has simultaneously changed background checks, supervisory structures or procedures for investigating allegations involving civic volunteers.
That gap is important because auxiliary workforces occupy an intermediate space in public administration. They can extend the reach of a city agency without having the same institutional position, training pathway or accountability structure as permanent employees. The available report does not describe the precise powers assigned to Kolkata’s civic volunteers. It therefore cannot support claims about the scale of their authority. It does, however, show that the police administration has considered it necessary to formalise at least one part of their service conditions.
The code also raises a question about the difference between presence and accountability. A person’s attendance can be recorded through notices and duty rosters, but attendance alone cannot establish whether public-facing work is being performed correctly. For that, an institution would need additional systems covering deployment, supervision and complaints. None of those systems is described in the report, and it would be premature to assume that the new code addresses them.
The administrative sequence may nevertheless be useful as a basic governance tool. It gives supervisors a defined response to prolonged absence instead of leaving the matter to informal follow-up. It also creates a stated point at which continued non-response can result in removal from duty. Whether the process is fair and effective will depend on the accuracy of attendance records, the reliability of communication and the consistency with which the procedure is applied.
The police commissioner’s decision on 17 September is the confirmed milestone identified in the report. The next relevant evidence will be the text of the code itself, details of the authority responsible for enforcement and any clarification from Kolkata Police on how the rules relate to the Jharkhand case. Until those details are available, the measure can be understood as a new attendance and disciplinary protocol, but not as a complete account of civic-volunteer accountability in Kolkata.
