Vikas Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Others

Jagmohan Bansal, J

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondents to consider his representations dated 09.07.2025 and 30.01.2026 seeking change of Inquiry Officer.

As per petitioner, he is a whistleblower. He lodged complaints against officials of Food Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs alleging misappropriation of wheat stock. On the basis of his complaints, two officials namely Ashok Kumar Sharma, Inspector and Sandeep, Sub-Inspector were placed under suspension. An FIR No.318 dated 06.09.2025 under Sections 316(5) & 318(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita was registered against officials at Police Station Kunjpura, District Karnal. On his complaints, many more FIRs have been registered against officials of Food Civil Supply Department. The respondent vide order dated 12.08.2025 constituted a committee comprising four members to conduct physical verification and supervise transfer of stock. The composition of said committee has been changed vide order dated 12.01.2026. Mukesh Gupta who was on duty along with aforesaid two officials has been made part of aforesaid committee. He should not be made part of committee because it is against the principle of natural justice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per circular dated 07.02.2017 issued by State Government, Assistant Food & Supplies Officer (‘AFSO’) is liable to bear 20% of loss suffered by Corporation. Respondent No.4 was holding position of AFSO, thus, he could not be made part of committee conducting inquiry regarding loss of stock. It would even otherwise be in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

Reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

Per contra, learned State counsel submits that respondent No.4 is discharging his duties in accordance with law. Suspended officers handed over charge to him. The stock was physically examined by respondent No.4 in the presence of suspended officers. The recorded stock was 1,81,212 bags of wheat whereas 1,78,565 bags were actually found. This exercise was carried out by respondent No.4. An FIR has already been registered against erring officers. The petitioner has no locus standi.

Heard the arguments and perused the record.

From the perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner, as a public-spirited person, has raised genuine question of shortage/misappropriation of stock of wheat. On his complaints, matter was examined and it was found that there was shortage of stock. The department has suspended its two officers. FIR has been lodged and police is investigating the matter. As FIR stands registered, the matter has to be investigated by an independent agency i.e. police department. The respondent has constituted a committee to examine the matter departmentally. It is prerogative of the department to constitute committee to examine the matter. Members of committee cannot be selected as per suitability or desire of the complainant because it may lead to exploitation or blackmailing. For the issue raised herein, the petitioner has no locus standi. He had right to point out to authorities about shortage of stock. He has already discharged his duty and law has taken its course.

In the backdrop, no order is warranted. The petition stands disposed of.