Himachal Pradesh DIG Sanjeev Gandhi faces two police cases in consecutive days over funds

Police Cases

Himachal Pradesh Deputy Inspector General Sanjeev Gandhi has been named in two separate police cases in Shimla over two consecutive days. A local constable filed the first case on Thursday, accusing the senior officer of forgery, cheating, and misusing about Rs 2.35 lakh of government money during his past tenure as the Shimla Superintendent of Police. The complainant alleged that the officer diverted Rs 1.80 lakh meant for official work reimbursement after getting his signatures on documents. The second case followed on Friday under Section 316(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, targeting alleged financial irregularities involving about Rs 14 lakh. An audit report claimed this money was spent on repairing the official residence of the then Shimla SSP at Southwood without getting proper approvals from the state government or the Police Headquarters.

Denials And Past Clashes

DIG Gandhi has strongly rejected all accusations, calling them a deliberate witch hunt and a personal and professional vendetta against him. The 53-year-old officer, who currently heads the Himachal Backward Classes Finance and Development Corporation, stated that Southwood is government property rather than his personal asset. He also pointed out that the state government previously put a penal rent notice regarding that house on hold. Gandhi has a history of high-profile public disputes with senior police leadership. While serving as Shimla SP last year, he openly accused then Director General of Police Atul Verma of submitting a misleading court affidavit in the death probe of former power corporation engineer Vimal Negi, while also alleging ties between the top police office and drug networks. Those May 2025 remarks led the Chief Minister to send multiple top officials, including Gandhi and Verma, on leave.

Context

Senior police officers in India occasionally face administrative inquiries and legal challenges following disputes with state leadership or rival colleagues within the force. Internal audits and government accommodation rules frequently form the basis of scrutiny regarding official spending by senior bureaucrats and police personnel. The case highlights ongoing tensions within the state police apparatus involving past investigation teams and high-ranking officials.