Chandigarh: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the dismissal of Gursher Singh Sandhu, a former Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police, in connection with the controversial interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi.
In a judgment pronounced on Tuesday, Justice Namit Kumar held that the Punjab government had failed to establish circumstances that justified dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry. The court ordered the government to reinstate Sandhu with all consequential benefits.
The court allowed Sandhu’s writ petition and set aside the Punjab government’s January 2, 2025, order dismissing him from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
“The impugned order, whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service by dispensing with the regular departmental inquiry, is accordingly liable to be set aside,” the court held.
The court, however, said that Sandhu’s reinstatement would be without prejudice to the state’s right to continue with the departmental inquiry already pending against him and other police officials before an inquiry officer.
Sandhu was dismissed for allegedly facilitating the recording of an interview of Bishnoi while he was in police custody. A private news channel had aired two interviews of Bishnoi in March 2023.
The Punjab government had invoked Article 311 of the Constitution to dismiss Sandhu.
Sandhu challenged the dismissal, arguing that the government had wrongly invoked Article 311(2)(b) to dispense with the regular departmental inquiry and had denied him an opportunity to be heard.
Sandhu, who was then posted as DSP, SAS Nagar, was issued show-cause notices in September and October 2024. He submitted that he had no role in bringing Bishnoi to Punjab or overseeing his stay while he was in custody at the CIA staff premises in Mohali. He also said he was never the investigating officer in any case against Bishnoi.
The court observed that the respondents’ decision to dispense with the inquiry was essentially based on the alleged non-cooperation of Sandhu and his alleged failure to receive the chargesheet.
“Even assuming for sake of argument that the petitioner had initially failed to receive the complete chargesheet, such conduct, by itself, could not justify dispensing with the inquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. The employee cannot frustrate a departmental inquiry merely by remaining absent or declining to participate.
“Therefore, mere non-cooperation or absence of the delinquent employee cannot be elevated to a circumstance rendering the holding of an inquiry constitutionally impracticable,” the court observed.
The court further said, “Mere recital in the order that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable would not, by itself, be sufficient. The competent authority must demonstrate a real and proximate nexus between the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time and the inability to hold departmental enquiry.”
The court also noted that there was no allegation that Sandhu had threatened or intimidated witnesses.
“It said there is no material placed before this court to show that any witness had expressed unwillingness against the petitioner on account of any threat or coercion attributable to him.”
There was also no material to suggest that Sandhu had attempted to tamper with evidence or interfere with the functioning of the inquiry officer, the court said.
The court held that the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority for dispensing with the departmental inquiry did not meet the constitutional standard prescribed under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.