Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court today set aside Himachal Pradesh High Court's order to shift State DGP Sanjay Kundu upon allegations by a businessman from Palampur, alleging threat to him and his family members. 

"The consequences of shifting out an IPS officer are serious. Such an order could not be passed without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to hear him out. The correct position for HC while dealing with its recall order should have been to set it aside and provide the parties an opportunity to lay their perspective before it.", a bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra has said.

top Court noted that while considering Kundu's recall application, High Court substantially relied on the previously submitted status reports which were referred to in its earlier order.

"The exercise followed by the High Court suffers from patent error of jurisdiction as much as an order passed of serious consequences had to be complied with the principles of natural justice", the CJI led bench has said.

Last week, the court had stayed the said order while asking the high court to decide the senior IPS officer Kundu's application for recall of the impugned order within two weeks. 

Notably, the High Court had issued the impugned directions after recording a finding that Kundu in his capacity of the Director General of Police had unfairly obstructed the course of an investigation.

On January 2, 2024, in compliance with the High Court's December 26, 2023 order, Kundu was removed from the post of Himachal Pradesh DGP and posted as Principal Secretary, Ayush.

Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Kundu, had questioned the high court’s order, passed in a suo motu proceedings, against the petitioner without impleading him or giving him an opportunity of hearing to rebut the allegations, made against him in the email by the complainant.

Rohatgi said Kundu was set to retire in less than four months and an adverse order of the present nature would blemish his 35-year-long career when he was not at fault.

It was further contended that Kundu had tried to mediate between the parties embroiled in a private dispute and he had nothing to do with the dispute between the two, and that he was willing to have the CBI probe the matter.

The complainant's counsel claimed the DGP exerted pressure on his client and put him under surveillance.

In an email complaint to the high court, the complainant alleged that he and his family feared for their lives as he was “attacked in Gurugram and in McLeodganj”. 

The complainant Nishant Sharma had further sought the high court’s urgent intervention as he “needed protection from powerful people”.

Cause Title: Sanjay Kundu vs. Registrar General & Ors