Weeks after DGP-businessman Nishant controversy, Himachal government issues notification revoking police chief Sanjay Kundu’s transfer
- Himachal CM’s wife may get ministry if Congress follows this tradition for cabinet expansion - November 5, 2024
- Himachal High Court maintains stay on termination of 900 horticulture project employees - November 5, 2024
- Himachal weather: After month of drought-like conditions, rain likely on this day - November 5, 2024
The Newz Redar
DHARAMSHALA: The Himachal Pradesh government has revoked the transfer orders of Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Kundu to the post of Principal Secretary, AYUSH. The orders were withdrawn following directions of the Supreme Court.
Kundu would now continue on the post of DGP and the government has issued a notification in this regard. On January 12, 2024, the Supreme Court had set aside the Himachal Pradesh High Court order to transfer IPS officer Kundu from the post of DGP’s post. The High Court had ordered the transfer to ensure an impartial investigation into the case involving levelling of charges of alleged harassment against Kundu by Palampur businessman Nishant Sharma.
On December 26, the High Court had passed the order in the suo motu proceedings initiated on a letter petition sent by the businessman expressing fear of danger to his life.
The complainant had alleged that Kundu was interfering in the investigation. Considering it necessary to ensure impartial investigation of the case, the High Court had ordered the transfer of the DGP and the Kangra SP. The Supreme Court on January 3 stayed the High Court order and gave liberty to Kundu to approach the High Court for withdrawal of the earlier order.
On January 9, the High Court rejected Kundu’s plea seeking withdrawal of the order and directed to constitute an SIT to investigate the businessman’s complaint. After this, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s direction to transfer the DGP but did not interfere in the direction to transfer the investigation to the SIT. The Supreme Court clarified that the petitioner would not influence the functioning of the SIT. The Supreme Court ordered that the petitioner would not exercise any control over the SIT constituted in compliance with the directions of the High Court.
