Please Contribute Here to help us Grow!
Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu on Thursday said the constitutional office of the Governor would be accorded due respect and any communication from Raj Bhavan would be considered appropriately, even as a Himachal Pradesh Police constable was suspended after approaching the Governor’s Secretariat over his transfer.
While assuring that no police employee could be suspended arbitrarily, Sukhu said disciplinary action would be taken strictly in accordance with service rules. The police department, meanwhile, maintained that the suspension and departmental inquiry were based on alleged indiscipline, disobedience of lawful orders and repeated attempts by the constable to influence his posting.
Constable Dinesh Kumar, who has been placed under suspension, had served as an important prosecution witness in the custodial death case of Suraj, an accused in the 2017 Kotkhai minor girl rape and murder case.
According to an official order issued by the Office of the Superintendent of Police (SP), Shimla, the matter reached the Director General of Police (DGP) after the Governor’s Secretariat (Lok Bhawan) forwarded a telephonic communication regarding a complaint made by the constable.
In his complaint to the Governor’s Secretariat, Dinesh Kumar reportedly stated that despite transfer orders having been issued, he was not being relieved from his existing posting, preventing him from joining his new place of posting.
However, when he subsequently appeared before the Himachal Pradesh Police Headquarters (PHQ), he reportedly stated that his primary request was for a posting with the Raj Bhawan Guard so that he could take care of his physically disabled son.
Police Headquarters observed that the two representations appeared contradictory. It noted that if the constable was seeking a compassionate posting on humanitarian grounds, he ought to have submitted a formal representation through the prescribed departmental channel rather than making different claims before different authorities.
Describing the alleged conduct as unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force, the department initiated disciplinary proceedings and placed the constable under suspension pending a regular departmental inquiry.
According to the police, the inquiry will examine whether the constable attempted to influence the transfer and posting process by misrepresenting facts before different authorities and whether further disciplinary action is warranted under the applicable service rules.
Meanwhile, Dinesh Kumar’s family rejected the disciplinary action and alleged that he was being victimised for standing by his testimony in the Suraj custodial death case.
Addressing a press conference in Shimla on Thursday, Dinesh Kumar’s brother, Suresh Shandilya, and his mother alleged that the constable had faced sustained harassment since 2017 after refusing to alter his statement before the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) during the custodial death investigation.
The family claimed that Dinesh Kumar, who was on duty at the time of Suraj’s custodial death, became a key prosecution witness in the CBI case. They alleged that he was pressured to depose in favour of senior police officers but refused and testified truthfully before the court. According to them, his testimony contributed to the conviction of eight police personnel, including a former Inspector General of Police, who were sentenced to life imprisonment by a special CBI court.
Suresh Shandilya alleged that Dinesh Kumar was suspended in 2017 after his testimony. Though reinstated nearly six months later, the departmental inquiry initiated against him has remained pending for almost nine years, adversely affecting his promotion and other service benefits.
The family further alleged that the department had assured him that he would not be transferred without his consent and would be accommodated at his home station. Despite informing the department that his physically disabled son required constant care, they claimed he was transferred five times within the past one-and-a-half months.
They also alleged that when Dinesh Kumar approached senior officers seeking relief, he was called to the office late at night, subjected to abusive language and mentally harassed. According to the family, the prolonged harassment caused him severe mental distress, and he had even expressed suicidal thoughts.
The family alleged that disciplinary proceedings were initiated only after Dinesh Kumar approached the Governor’s Secretariat seeking relief regarding his posting.
Displaying several commendation certificates awarded to the constable during his service, the family maintained that his service record had been exemplary and accused the department of victimising him despite his distinguished career.
Dinesh Kumar’s mother appealed to the government to ensure her son’s safety and provide him with a secure posting. The family said they had submitted representations to the Chief Minister, the Governor, the Home Department and the Director General of Police seeking an independent inquiry into the alleged harassment. They also said they would approach the Himachal Pradesh High Court, the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court if necessary.
Issuing a detailed clarification, Shimla Superintendent of Police Gaurav Singh said the constable’s family had recently addressed a press conference making what he described as false allegations against the police department, making it necessary to place the department’s version on record.
According to the SP, the matter originated from an incident on April 30, 2026, at Kalra Dhar near the jurisdictional boundary of Kupvi and Chopal police stations.
A complaint was received against the then Station House Officer (SHO), Chopal, and Constable Dinesh Kumar. The inquiry, conducted by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO), Theog, who also held additional charge of SDPO Chopal, reportedly found that the then SHO and the constable had allegedly abused and misbehaved with local residents. The inquiry also recorded allegations that money and personal belongings had been taken from the complainants and that they had been threatened with false criminal cases.
The inquiry report reached the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Shimla, on June 6, 2026.
Based on its findings, the SSP issued a show-cause notice to the then SHO Chopal on June 7, 2026. The SP clarified that although Dinesh Kumar’s conduct during the incident was also found to be questionable, no show-cause notice or departmental action was initiated against him at that stage. Instead, he was temporarily deployed from Chopal Police Station to Nankhari Police Station, which the department maintained was only a deployment and not a formal transfer.
According to the police, the constable failed to comply with the deployment order and did not report for duty at Nankhari. Despite what the department described as an act of indiscipline, he was given sufficient opportunity and eventually joined duty on June 21, nearly two weeks later.
Meanwhile, the then SHO Chopal was attached to Police Lines, Kaithu, as part of departmental action.
The SP further stated that Dinesh Kumar had remained posted at Chopal Police Station for nearly five years and had allegedly made repeated attempts to exert pressure on senior officers to avoid deployment and secure a posting of his choice.
Taking into account his family circumstances, the department said it adopted a humanitarian approach and, on July 9, 2026, posted him as Naib Court at Theog, which it described as his preferred station. He joined duties there on July 17.
However, according to the SP, even after joining, the constable allegedly continued making efforts to secure a permanent guard posting in Shimla and attempted to mislead senior officers regarding his posting.
In view of the repeated alleged violations of departmental orders, failure to join duty on time and what the department termed indisciplined conduct, the Superintendent of Police, Shimla, ordered his suspension and directed a regular departmental inquiry.
The police maintained that the inquiry is being conducted strictly in accordance with service rules and the principles of natural justice. It said the constable would be given a full opportunity to present his defence before any final decision is taken.
The department reiterated that the police is a disciplined force and every officer and employee is duty-bound to comply with service rules and lawful departmental orders.
Responding to questions from mediapersons regarding the suspension of the constable, Chief Minister Sukhvinder Singh Sukhu said disciplinary matters involving police personnel are governed strictly by service rules.
“The Police Department has its own rules. Any action against police personnel must be taken in accordance with established service rules. No one can be suspended arbitrarily. The Director General of Police will examine the matter and action will be taken as per the rules,” Sukhu said.
The Chief Minister also said the government had full respect for the constitutional office of the Governor.
“The Governor holds a constitutional office. Any communication or recommendation from the Governor’s office will be treated with due respect and considered appropriately by the government,” Sukhu added.
Leader of Opposition and former Chief Minister Jai Ram Thakur criticised the suspension of the constable, saying a government employee had every constitutional right to seek redressal of his grievance.
“A government employee has every constitutional right to seek justice. Suspending someone merely for meeting the Governor is deeply unfortunate and reflects intolerance within the government,” Thakur said.-ANI