LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Sanjay Kundu vs Registrar General, High Court of Himachal Pradesh & Ors.

Not available · 2024 INSC 43Decided 12 Jan 2024
Not available
Justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud

Background

A complainant emailed the Himachal Pradesh High Court's Chief Justice alleging that Sanjay Kundu, then Director General of Police (DGP) of Himachal Pradesh, was misusing his office at the behest of a third party to intimidate him into selling his shares in a family company, and that he had been threatened and surveilled. The High Court took up the matter as a suo motu criminal writ petition, and based on police status reports, directed, without hearing Kundu, that he be transferred out of the DGP post to ensure a fair investigation. Kundu was not made a party or given a chance to respond before this order was passed, and his later application asking the High Court to recall that order was also rejected.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had committed a serious procedural error by transferring a serving IPS officer out of his post, effectively exercising disciplinary control over him, without ever giving him an opportunity to be heard, violating the basic principle of audi alteram partem (the right to a hearing). It found that the correct course would have been for the High Court to recall its one-sided order and start the proceedings afresh with all affected parties present, rather than simply relying on further status reports while denying a fresh, dispassionate hearing. The Supreme Court set aside only the direction shifting Kundu out of the DGP post, while leaving intact the High Court's other directions, forming a Special Investigation Team of IG-level officers (who would not report to Kundu) to investigate the FIRs, and ensuring adequate protection for the complainant's family. The Court expressly declined to comment on the merits of the allegations against either side, leaving that to the SIT's investigation.

Lesson Learnt

Even when serious allegations are made against a public official, courts cannot pass orders with serious civil consequences (like removing someone from their post) without first giving that person a fair opportunity to be heard: natural justice cannot be sacrificed for administrative expediency, no matter how compelling the initial complaint appears.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case