The Punjab and Haryana High Court has overturned the dismissal of Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police Gursher Singh Sandhu, who had been removed from service over the controversial interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi recorded from prison.
The court held that the state had failed to establish why a regular departmental inquiry could not be conducted and directed Sandhu’s reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.
In its judgment delivered on Tuesday, Justice Namit Kumar quashed the Punjab government’s January 2025 order dismissing Sandhu under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. However, the court clarified that the reinstatement would not prevent the state from continuing the departmental inquiry already pending against Sandhu and other police officials before an inquiry officer.
Sandhu had been dismissed for allegedly facilitating the recording of an interview with Bishnoi while the gangster was in police custody. A private news channel had broadcast two interviews of Bishnoi in March 2023. The Punjab government subsequently exercised its powers under Article 311 to remove Sandhu from service.
Challenging his dismissal, Sandhu argued that the government had improperly relied on Article 311(2)(b) to bypass a regular departmental inquiry and had denied him a proper opportunity to present his case. At the time, Sandhu was posted as DSP, SAS Nagar. He had been served show-cause notices in September and October 2024.
Sandhu maintained that he had played no role in bringing Bishnoi to Punjab or supervising his detention at the CIA staff premises in Mohali. He also said he had never been the investigating officer in any case involving the gangster.
The court noted that the state’s justification for dispensing with the departmental inquiry was primarily based on allegations that Sandhu had not cooperated with the proceedings and had failed to accept the chargesheet.
The court observed that even if Sandhu had initially failed to receive the complete chargesheet, that alone could not justify abandoning the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b). It said an employee’s absence or refusal to participate in proceedings could not be treated as making a departmental inquiry constitutionally impracticable.
The court further held that merely stating in a dismissal order that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable was insufficient. The competent authority had to establish a genuine and immediate connection between the circumstances existing at the relevant time and the claimed inability to conduct the departmental proceedings.
It also pointed out that there was no allegation that Sandhu had threatened or intimidated any witnesses. The court found no material indicating that witnesses were unwilling to testify against him because of threats or coercion attributable to him. There was also no evidence suggesting that Sandhu had attempted to tamper with evidence or obstruct the work of the inquiry officer.
The high court concluded that the competent authority’s decision to dispense with the departmental inquiry did not satisfy the constitutional requirements of Article 311(2)(b).
It therefore set aside Sandhu’s dismissal, ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits, and clarified that the state could proceed with the departmental inquiry already pending against him.
