Ninety-Six Constables and a Twenty-Four Hour Clock
A police station has a sanctioned strength of 96 constables. On 1 March, 8 are on long leave, 4 are away on a training course and 3 are attached to another unit for a month. The station's daily commitment is 22 posts in each of three shifts, plus a 12-constable law-and-order reserve. Every constable is entitled to one day off in seven, and the SHO must not breach the eight-hour shift norm or the weekly rest rule. The station has no overtime budget and has been told to request help only if it can show the shortfall in writing. The inspector's clerk argues that the 3 attached constables should be counted as available 'because they are coming back'.
1. Compute the number of constables actually deployable on an average day and compare it with the daily requirement. State the shortfall.
Read the worked answer
Available strength: 96 − (8 long leave + 4 training + 3 attached out) = 81.
Weekly rest pulls this down. One day in seven off means that on any given day about 81 ÷ 7 ≈ 11.6 constables are resting, so deployable strength is about 81 − 11.6 ≈ 69 (69 or 70 depending on the day). Plan on 69.
Daily requirement: 22 posts × 3 shifts = 66, plus a 12-man reserve = 78.
Shortfall: 78 − 69 ≈ 9 constables a day. Note also that 81 is only 3 above 78, so the station cannot absorb even a single day's rest without breaking the requirement. The gap is structural, not a bad day. The written justification should show both lines: 81 available against 78 required, and 69 deployable after rest against 78 required.
2. Evaluate the clerk's argument about the three attached constables, given the no-overtime constraint.
Read the worked answer
The argument fails on two counts. First, the 3 attached men are not on this station's strength for the month; counting them is counting a hope. If they return on the first of next month, the establishment for that month is 84 and the case can be made then, with the return order attached to the paper. Second, the no-overtime constraint is not solved by arithmetic: even if the men existed, there is no budget to pay beyond eight hours, and unsanctioned overtime becomes an audit objection.
The other tempting shortcut - quietly skipping the weekly off - is not available either. It breaches the rest rule, and a constable on his seventh consecutive night shift is a liability on a naka. The honest submission is to state the gap as about 9 a day, show the two-line calculation, and ask for a specific number on deputation rather than for 'some help'.
3. Recommend the most defensible reallocation, showing its effect on the numbers.
Read the worked answer
Best combination, in order of least harm:
- Trim the reserve from 12 to 6 temporarily. Requirement drops from 78 to 72, so the shortfall falls from about 9 to about 3. The reserve exists for contingencies, not as a standing parade; the station accepts a thinner immediate response for one month.
- Request 3 constables on deputation from the district reserve or a neighbouring station, attaching the paper showing 72 required against 69 deployable.
- Restructure posts before touching rest days. If two of the 22 posts are static guard posts that can be merged into a mobile beat, that returns 2 men with no loss of area coverage.
- Stagger shift changeover so the 08:00 handover does not put two shifts on the ground at once.
What must not be done: cancel weekly offs, run 12-hour shifts without sanction, or show the 3 attached men as present. Record the reallocation in the daily deployment order so the coverage trade-off is visible.