Himachal Pradesh DGP Case: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Order on Transfer

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a crucial judgment in the case of Sanjay Kundu vs. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., which revolved around the alleged misuse of power by the Director General of Police (DGP), Himachal Pradesh. The case arose from serious allegations of intimidation, wrongful influence, and abuse of office in a private business dispute. The Supreme Court’s intervention set aside the High Court’s order that directed the transfer of the DGP while ensuring an impartial investigation into the allegations.

Background of the Case

The matter originated from an email sent by the complainant, Mr. Nishant Kumar Sharma, to the Chief Justice of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. In the email, Sharma alleged that he was being threatened by two individuals—one a former IPS officer and the other an advocate—who were pressuring him and his family to sell their shares in their company. He further claimed that the DGP of Himachal Pradesh, Sanjay Kundu, was using his official position to influence him on behalf of the advocate.

The complainant alleged that he had received multiple phone calls from the petitioner’s office, directing him to meet the DGP in Shimla. Additionally, he detailed previous criminal complaints that he had filed, including an attack in Gurugram on August 25, 2023. Despite filing complaints with the police, no First Information Report (FIR) was initially registered regarding his grievances.

High Court Proceedings

Criminal Writ Petition Initiated by High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court took cognizance of the email and initiated a suo motu Criminal Writ Petition. The State of Himachal Pradesh, along with the Superintendents of Police (SPs) of Kangra and Shimla, were named as respondents. Notices were issued, and status reports were requested.

Status Reports and FIR Registrations

Following the High Court’s intervention:

On November 16, 2023, an FIR (No. 55/2023) was registered by the McLeodganj Police under Sections 341, 504, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The status report filed by the SP of Shimla highlighted that the complainant had received 15 missed calls from the DGP’s office on the day of the alleged McLeodganj incident.
It was revealed that a counter FIR (No. 98/2023) had been filed against the complainant at the behest of the DGP under Sections 299, 469, 499, and 505 of the IPC.
The complainant alleged that he was attacked by two individuals at McLeodganj after refusing to meet the DGP.

High Court’s Findings and Order

The High Court ruled that there was enough material to suggest:

The DGP was in regular contact with the complainant’s business rival, “Y.”
The DGP made multiple missed calls to the complainant on the day of the alleged attack.
The complainant was being surveilled.
A counter FIR was registered against the complainant soon after he refused to comply with the DGP’s demands.

Based on these findings, the High Court ordered the transfer of the DGP and SP of Kangra from their respective posts to ensure an impartial investigation. The Himachal Pradesh Government implemented the order and reassigned the DGP to the post of Principal Secretary (Ayush).

Supreme Court Intervention

Arguments by Petitioner (Sanjay Kundu)

The DGP challenged the High Court’s decision in a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. His counsel, Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, contended that:

The High Court had wrongly exercised disciplinary jurisdiction over a senior police officer.
The order was passed ex parte, without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The High Court relied solely on status reports without independently verifying the allegations.
There was no legal justification for transferring the DGP without any evidence of bias in the investigation.

Arguments by Respondents

The respondents, led by Advocate Rahul Sharma, argued that the DGP had:

Overstepped his authority by intervening in a private business dispute.
Threatened the complainant and tried to coerce him into withdrawing criminal complaints.
Placed the complainant under surveillance and used his office for personal motives.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court made the following observations:

“The High Court assumed disciplinary jurisdiction over the petitioner, which was clearly impermissible. As a serving police officer, the petitioner is subject to disciplinary control under service rules.”

“The order transferring the DGP was passed without affording him an opportunity to be heard, leading to a manifest miscarriage of procedural justice.”

“A post-decisional hearing lacks fresh and dispassionate application of mind, thereby raising concerns about due process.”

Final Judgment by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled as follows:

The order transferring the DGP was set aside.
The Himachal Pradesh Government was directed to constitute a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of Inspector General (IG) level officers to conduct an independent probe.
The SIT would not report to the DGP to prevent any undue influence.
The complainant and his family would be provided police protection.

Implications of the Judgment

The Supreme Court’s decision sets a crucial precedent for:

Reinforcing the principle that High Courts cannot exercise disciplinary control over senior officers without proper procedures.
Ensuring procedural fairness by requiring affected parties to be heard before major decisions.
Maintaining a balance between holding public officials accountable and preventing arbitrary administrative actions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case highlights the importance of procedural fairness in judicial interventions against public officials. While the allegations against the DGP are serious and warrant an independent investigation, the Court emphasized that due process must be followed. By striking down the High Court’s order while upholding the need for a fair investigation, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental principles of justice.

Petitioner Name: Sanjay Kundu.
Respondent Name: Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala, Justice Manoj Misra.
Place Of Incident: Himachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 12-01-2024.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: sanjay-kundu-vs-registrar-general,-h-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-01-2024.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Custodial Deaths and Police Misconduct
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by J.B. Pardiwala
See all petitions in Judgment by Manoj Misra
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2024
See all petitions in 2024 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category