E-Paper
Punjab and Haryana HC stays strictures against Mohali DSP
The HC bench of Vinod S Bhardwaj acted on a plea from the DSP, Gursher Singh Sandhu, who had challenged the June 24 communication from additional district and sessions judge Harsimranjit Singh, asking the Punjab director general of police (DGP) to conduct an inquiry against Sandhu
The Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) has stayed adverse remarks by a Mohali court against deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu during hearing in an immigration fraud case and sought response of the judicial officer concerned.
The HC bench of Vinod S Bhardwaj acted on a plea from the DSP, who had challenged the June 24 communication from additional district and sessions judge Harsimranjit Singh, asking the Punjab director general of police (DGP) to conduct an inquiry against Sandhu.
The Mohali court, after finding Sandhu’s investigations in two immigration cases “shoddy and botched up”, had asked the DGP to get the inquiries done by a senior IPS-level officer.
The letter read: “While probing two immigration cases Sandhu gave culprits a clean chit and real victims were named as culprits”. “...it emanates from the record that inquiry officer (Sandhu) has conducted biased, misdirected and tainted inquiry probably to shield some of the culprits.”
Appearing before the HC, Sandhu argued that the local court had recorded certain adverse remarks against him in various orders which were not called for and were not even necessary for adjudication of the said orders.
The plea claims the judicial officer, rather than passing judicial orders which can be challenged before appropriate forums, wrote a letter to the DGP, without referring to any legal provision which empowers him to undertake such administrative action, and sought an inquiry against him.
“The petitioner is being targeted in a vengeful and malicious manner by the judicial officer for reasons best known to him,” Sandhu alleged in his plea before the HC.
The court said while deferring hearing stated, “In the meanwhile, the adverse observations recorded in the orders brought before this court shall remain stayed till the next date of hearing.”
While seeking response from the Punjab government and the judicial officer in question, by October 10, the court also asked why the June 24 communication should not be stayed.
