Back
Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes DSP's Dismissal Over Lawrence Bishnoi Interview
In a significant ruling, the set aside the dismissal of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu, who had been from service for allegedly facilitating a television interview of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi while he was in police custody. Justice Namit Kumar, presiding over a single bench, held that the state's invocation of —which allows dismissal without a regular —was procedurally unsound and based on insufficient grounds.
The Case: A DSP Caught in the Bishnoi Interview Controversy
The petitioner, Gursher Singh Sandhu, was a DSP in the . He had initially joined the as an Assistant Commandant in 2012 and was later selected through the for the DSP post in 2013. During his tenure, Lawrence Bishnoi—the notorious gangster linked to the murder of Punjabi singer Sidhu Moosewala—was brought to the CIA Staff Kharar under the supervision of the . It was during this period that an interview of Bishnoi was aired by a news channel in .
Following a public interest litigation (CWP-PIL-93-2023) and a probe, the state government issued show-cause notices to Sandhu, alleging negligence and dereliction of duty. Despite his replies and participation in initial proceedings, the government invoked Article 311(2)(b) on , dismissing him without a full , citing non-cooperation and that holding an inquiry was “.”
Arguments: The Battle Over Procedural Fairness
Petitioner’s Stand: , representing Sandhu, argued that the dismissal was arbitrary and violated . He contended that the petitioner had actively participated in the inquiry, submitted replies, and sought documents. The reasons given for dispensing with the inquiry were vague and merely a repetition of the constitutional provision. The decision was pre-determined, as evident from statements made in court before the dismissal order was passed. Moreover, while Sandhu was singled out, other officers facing similar allegations were allowed a regular inquiry.
Respondents’ Stand: The state, represented by , justified the dismissal, arguing that Sandhu had deliberately evaded service of the and was non-cooperative. The gravity of the allegations—facilitating an interview of a high-profile gangster—warranted swift action under Article 311(2)(b). The competent authority had recorded reasons in writing, which should be given finality.
Legal Analysis: High Court Scrutinizes the '' Standard
Justice Kumar delved deep into the precedents surrounding Article 311(2)(b), drawing extensively from the Constitution Bench judgment in and subsequent rulings in , , and . The court reiterated that the power to dispense with an inquiry is an exception, not the rule, and must be exercised with utmost caution. The satisfaction must be based on objective material, not the of the authority. Mere allegations of non-cooperation or the seriousness of charges do not automatically make holding an inquiry impracticable.
The court observed that the record showed Sandhu had initially responded to show-cause notices and even sought documents. The claim that he evaded service was contradicted by the fact that the was sent to an old address, even though the department was aware of his current posting. Furthermore, the state itself had appointed a former judge, Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, to conduct a joint inquiry into the same incident against nine officers, including Sandhu. This inquiry was ongoing even after Sandhu's dismissal, demonstrating that a regular inquiry was indeed feasible.
Key Observations: Court's Stinging Critique
The court made several crucial observations:
“The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer.”
“Mere recital in the order that an inquiry is 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 subsequent conduct of the petitioner… belies the very basis on which the respondents sought to invoke the extraordinary power under .”
The court also noted the inconsistency in the state's approach: while it claimed that holding an inquiry against Sandhu was impracticable, it simultaneously proceeded with a joint inquiry against other officers for the same occurrence.
The Verdict: Reinstatement and a Lesson in Procedural Justice
Allowing the , Justice Namit Kumar quashed the dismissal order dated (Annexure P-26) and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. However, the court clarified that this order does not preclude the state from continuing the pending in accordance with law.
The judgment serves as a strong reminder that Article 311(2)(b) cannot be used as a shortcut to bypass the guaranteed to government servants. It reinforces the constitutional principle that even in cases involving serious allegations, the must be followed unless genuine, documented reasons exist to justify a departure.
