In a significant development, the Himachal Pradesh High Court has upheld its decision to remove IPS officer Sanjay Kundu from the position of Director General of Police. This decision is part of the court’s efforts to ensure an unbiased investigation into a complaint by businessman Nishant Sharma, who expressed fear for his life due to a former IPS officer and a practicing lawyer. The State has since reassigned Kundu as the Principal Secretary of the Ayush Department, with his retirement due in three months.
Also read-Himachal Pradesh High Court Limits Privileges Of Chief Parliamentary Secretaries (lawchakra.in)
The case centers around a business dispute involving Sharma and a Senior Advocate, who is an “old acquaintance” of Kundu. Kundu asserts that his interaction with Sharma was limited to a cordial phone conversation, driven by the principles of police-led mediation. However, Sharma alleges that Kundu threatened him during this interaction. Kundu had previously sought intervention from the Supreme Court against his removal, but was directed to petition the High Court for a recall.
The division bench, led by Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, acknowledged the difficulty in discerning the truth in this matter. However, they noted that Kundu’s involvement in mediating a civil dispute was beyond his duties as a senior police officer. The bench also highlighted a specific instance where Kundu allegedly intimidated the officer investigating the case, deeming it unsafe for him to continue in his post.
The court firmly stated,
“Should this Court, under the pretext of protecting the reputation of the officers concerned, forget its constitutional responsibility of ensuring fair investigation in the matter? We think not. There cannot be a fair trial without fair investigation.”
This statement underscores the court’s commitment to a just and impartial inquiry.
Additionally, the court dismissed a plea by Shalini Agnihotri, who was transferred from her role as Superintendent of Police in Kangra. The bench criticized her for not utilizing available CCTV data analysis related to the alleged attack on Sharma and questioned her diligence and sensitivity in handling the case. The court expressed disbelief at Agnihotri’s defense that she was preoccupied with celebrating important festivals during this critical period, questioning the responsibility of a police officer under such circumstances.
Rejecting the officers’ request to transfer the investigation to the CBI, the court instead directed the State government to consider forming a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to oversee the investigation and ensure the safety of Sharma and his family. The court has requested a fresh status report on the matter and scheduled the next hearing for February 28.
The case, titled “COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,” represents a crucial stance by the judiciary in maintaining the integrity of investigations and ensuring the safety of citizens.
