PoliceDispute – Minister, SP Clash Over Officer Suspension Order

PoliceDispute – A tense exchange unfolded in Haryana on Friday when Cabinet Minister Anil Vij and Kaithal Superintendent of Police Upasana disagreed during a public grievance meeting over the proposed suspension of a police officer accused in a land fraud case.

Dispute Erupts at Grievance Redressal Meeting

The disagreement took place during a District Grievance Redressal Committee session, where complaints from residents were being reviewed. The matter under discussion involved Assistant Sub-Inspector Sandeep Kumar, currently posted with the Karnal Police, who is facing allegations linked to a disputed land transaction.

According to officials familiar with the inquiry, the officer is accused of accepting an advance payment of Rs. 7 lakh from a prospective buyer in connection with a land deal. The transaction later collapsed after discrepancies were reportedly found in the property documents. The buyer subsequently sought a refund, but the amount was allegedly not returned.

Fraud Allegations and Case Registration

Following the dispute, a formal complaint was lodged at the Titram police station in Kaithal district. Authorities initiated an investigation into the allegations of cheating and financial misconduct.

During the course of the probe, it was reported that the accused officer sought to influence the proceedings. Investigators found that the case had been shifted to the Economic Cell in Karnal. Officials indicated that the transfer slowed the progress of the inquiry, raising concerns about possible misuse of position.

The development drew attention at the grievance meeting, where the issue was brought before Minister Vij for review.

Jurisdiction Question Sparks Tension

During the meeting, the minister reportedly directed SP Upasana to suspend the officer with immediate effect. However, she clarified that the accused officer is posted in Karnal district and therefore falls outside her direct administrative control.

Upasana explained that under established service rules, she did not have the authority to suspend an officer serving in another district. She stated that the appropriate course of action would be to forward the matter to the Deputy Inspector General of Police for further decision.

Witnesses present at the meeting described the exchange as heated. The minister asserted that he held the authority to initiate suspension proceedings and urged that action be taken without delay. The SP reiterated that procedural rules required her to act within her jurisdiction.

Clarification After Public Exchange

Following the exchange, the minister clarified his position. He suggested that the SP formally communicate his directive to the senior police leadership rather than directly issuing a suspension order herself.

Later, speaking to reporters, Anil Vij maintained that he had not instructed the SP to suspend the officer independently. Instead, he said she was asked to write to the Deputy Inspector General, clearly stating that the directive originated from him.

The minister emphasized that both elected representatives and administrative officers are accountable to the public. He underlined that the objective of such interventions is to ensure that citizens receive timely justice and fair treatment.

Broader Concerns Over Accountability

The incident has highlighted ongoing concerns about administrative coordination and procedural compliance within the state’s law enforcement system. While no formal disciplinary action had been confirmed at the time of reporting, the case continues to draw attention due to its implications for governance and accountability.

Officials have indicated that further steps, if any, will be determined by the competent authority after reviewing the available evidence and administrative rules.

The matter remains under examination as authorities assess both the fraud allegations and the appropriate disciplinary process.