High Court quashes dismissal of Punjab cop over Lawrence Bishnoi interview

Chandigarh, The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the dismissal of Gursher Singh Sandhu as Punjab Police Deputy Superintendent of Police over the controversial interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi.

In the judgment pronounced on Tuesday, Justice Namit Kumar held that the state could not establish circumstances warranting dispensing with a regular departmental inquiry and ordered the Punjab government to reinstate Sandhu with all consequential benefits.

Also read: 'No safe harbor for these thugs': US charges Lawrence Bishnoi, Goldy Brar for Nijjar's killing in Canada in 2023


Allowing Sandhu's writ petition, the court 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.

It, however, stated that the quashing of the dismissal order and reinstatement would be without prejudice to the state's right to continue with the departmental inquiry that was already pending against Sandhu and other police officials before an inquiry officer.

Sandhu was dismissed from service for allegedly facilitating the recording of an interview of Bishnoi while he was in police custody.

A private news channel ran two interviews of Bishnoi in March 2023.

The government had invoked powers under Article 311 of the Constitution of India to dismiss Sandhu.

Sandhu had challenged the dismissal order, contending that the government had wrongly invoked Article 311(2)(b) to dispense with the regular departmental inquiry and had denied him an opportunity of being 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 in overseeing his stay while in custody at the CIA staff premises, Mohali, and he was never an investigating officer in any case against Bishnoi.

The court observed that the stand taken up by the respondents for dispensing with the inquiry essentially rests upon the alleged non-cooperation of the petitioner 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.

"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 said.

The court observed that there was no allegation that the petitioner had threatened or intimidated the 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 is also no material to suggest that the petitioner had attempted to tamper with evidence or interfere with the functioning of the inquiry officer, said the court.

It 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.