The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the dismissal of Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police Gursher Singh Sandhu, who was removed from service over the controversial interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi from the prison.
The court said the state had failed to show why a regular departmental inquiry could not be held and ordered Sandhu’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
In its judgment pronounced on Tuesday, Justice Namit Kumar set aside the Punjab government’s January 2025 order, which had dismissed Sandhu from service under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. The court, however, said the quashing of the dismissal order and reinstatement would be without prejudice to the state’s right to continue the departmental inquiry already pending against Sandhu and other police officials before an inquiry officer.
Sandhu was dismissed for allegedly facilitating the recording of an interview of Bishnoi while the gangster was in police custody. A private news channel had aired two interviews of Bishnoi in March 2023. The government had invoked powers under Article 311 of the Constitution to dismiss Sandhu.
Challenging the order, Sandhu argued that the government had wrongly invoked Article 311(2)(b) to dispense with a regular departmental inquiry and had denied him an opportunity of being heard. Sandhu, who was then posted as DSP, SAS Nagar, had been issued show-cause notices in September and October 2024. He said he had no role in bringing Bishnoi to Punjab or in overseeing his stay in custody at the CIA staff premises in Mohali, and that he was never an investigating officer in any case against Bishnoi.
The court noted that the respondents’ stand for dispensing with the inquiry was based mainly on Sandhu’s alleged non-cooperation and his alleged failure to receive the chargesheet.
It observed, “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 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.”
It also observed that there was no allegation that Sandhu had threatened or intimidated witnesses. The court said there was no material to show that any witness had expressed unwillingness to testify against him because of any threat or coercion attributable to him, and no material to suggest that he had tried to tamper with evidence or interfere with the functioning of the inquiry officer.
Holding that the competent authority’s satisfaction for dispensing with the departmental inquiry did not meet the constitutional standard under Article 311(2)(b), the high court set aside Sandhu’s dismissal, ordered his reinstatement with consequential benefits, and allowed the state to continue the pending departmental inquiry.
– Ends
Published By:
India Today Web Desk
Published On:
Sep 3, 2026 09:04 IST
