0

Sanjay Kundu IPS reinstated as DGP after Supreme Court overturns Himachal Pradesh High Court decision: Supreme Court of India

Case Title: Sanjay Kundu v. Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors

Case No: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 550-551 2024

Decided on:   12th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA DR D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J B PARDIWALA AND HON’BLE MR.  JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA

Facts of the Case

Sanjay Kundu appealed to the Supreme Court after the Himachal Pradesh High Court, on January 9, 2024, rejected his plea to reconsider a directive removing him from the position of Director General of Police (DGP). The removal stemmed from allegations that he had attempted to exert influence on a businessman claiming to have received threats from his partners. In a setback for both Kundu and Kangra SP Shalini Agnihotri, the high court recently dismissed their petition to reconsider its December 26, 2023 order mandating their transfer to prevent any impact on the ongoing investigation. The high court also rejected their plea for a CBI inquiry and instead ordered the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), comprising officers of the inspector general level, to oversee the investigations within a two-week timeframe.

On January 3, the Supreme Court temporarily halted the order for Kundu’s removal as DGP, instructing him to submit a recall application to the high court. The proceedings in the high court were initiated based on an email from Nishant K Sharma, a resident of Palampur, submitted to the Chief Justice on October 28, 2023. The complainant alleged physical assault, a phone call from the DGP office, and messages from the SP and SHO of Palampur. The complainant claimed that the DGP wanted to speak with him and asked him to visit Shimla.

Issue

The case centers around the removal of Sanjay Kundu, Himachal Pradesh’s DGP, over allegations of pressuring a businessman. The Supreme Court temporarily halted his removal and considered related issues, including the rejection of a petition to reconsider the transfer order and the choice of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) over a CBI probe.

Court’s analysis and decision

The Supreme Court has overturned the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which had ordered the relocation of State Director General of Police (DGP) Sanjay Kundu based on allegations made by a businessman from Palampur. The businessman had claimed threats to himself and his family. The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, along with Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the gravity of transferring an IPS officer and stated that such an order should not be issued without giving the concerned party an opportunity to present their case. The court suggested that the appropriate action for the High Court, when dealing with a recall order, should have been to set it aside and allow both parties to present their perspectives before making a decision.

The Supreme Court observed that, in reviewing Sanjay Kundu’s recall application, the High Court heavily depended on status reports previously presented and cited in its earlier directive. “The procedure adopted by the High Court is fundamentally flawed, as any order with significant repercussions must adhere to the principles of natural justice,” stated the bench led by Chief Justice of India.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement

0

Police Constable cannot withdraw his resignation and cannot be reinstated to his position: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Case Title: Madhav Prasad Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Case No: WP No. 938 of 2013

Decided on: 4th January, 2024

CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL

 Facts of the Case

The petitioner claimed to have resigned in 1994 citing ‘torture’ during his service. Despite submitting an application for reinstatement in 2010, it was rejected by the Director General of Police, Police Headquarters. The petitioner sought court intervention to instruct the authorities to reinstate him with all associated benefits and interest at a rate of 14% per annum.

In response, the respondents argued that as the petitioner had voluntarily resigned to the Superintendent of Police, there was no provision for reinstatement after the acceptance of the resignation. Advocate Arnav Tiwari, representing the respondents, added that the petition was filed 19 years after the petitioner’s resignation was accepted in June 1994.

Issues

Whether the government allow an employee to retract an application for voluntary resignation from the service once it is accepted? Will an employee be reinstated to his position after submitting a voluntary resignation?

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The Court observed that despite counselling and initial resistance from the respondents to accept the petitioner’s resignation letter, he persisted in his decision for voluntary retirement, which was eventually accepted. Regarding the possibility of allowing an employee to withdraw such an application for voluntary resignation, the Court considered the precedent set in P. Lal v. Union of India (2003). In that case, the Supreme Court established that once the Government accepts the notice for voluntary retirement, the retirement becomes effective, and the employer-employee relationship is terminated.

“The law in regard to resignation is that concept is bilateral and requires acceptance and it follows that offer of resignation can be withdrawn before acceptance as is held by the Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra AIR 1978 SC 694, Ravindra Singh vs. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SLJ 65 (SC) and thus, it is evident that once resignation was made and it was accepted, then its withdrawal after acceptance is not permissible as held in case of G. Kailashapathi Rao vs. Committee of Bandlamudi Hanumayanama Hindu Degree Junior College for Women 1994 (2) SLR 554 (AP),” Justice Tiwari observed.

The Court thus ascertained that the respondents’ refusal to accept the the petitioner’s request to permit him to be reinstated could therefore not be faulted with. The plea was thus dismissed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by- Afshan Ahmad

Click here to read the judgement