Summary
The High Court could not direct the transfer of Himachal Pradesh’s DGP from office without notice and a hearing, thereby assuming disciplinary jurisdiction reserved to the service authorities. The Supreme Court set aside that direction, ordered an IG-level SIT independent of the DGP, and directed adequate security for the complainant and his family, leaving the allegations for investigation.
Issues
- Whether the High Court could, without hearing the affected DGP, direct his transfer from office to secure a fair investigation and later refuse to recall that order.
- What investigative and security directions should remain in force while the allegations are investigated.
Held
- A High Court cannot assume disciplinary jurisdiction over a serving police officer by directing that he be moved from his post without considering the service rules and administrative hierarchy. Where an order has serious consequences for an affected person, it must afford that person an opportunity to be heard; a later post-decisional hearing did not cure the failure to provide a fresh and dispassionate consideration of recall. (¶¶ 30, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- The direction shifting the petitioner from the post of DGP was set aside. The State Government was directed to constitute an IG-level SIT to investigate the FIRs; its members must not report to the petitioner for that investigation, and the petitioner must exercise no control over it. The State must provide adequate security to the complainant and his family based on its assessment of the threat. (¶¶ 28, 36, 37)
- The Court expressed no view on the allegations against the petitioner or those he made against the SP, Shimla; those allegations were to be investigated in accordance with law. (¶¶ 35, 37)
Result
The special leave petitions were disposed of with the above directions; the merits of the allegations were left for investigation.