The Punjab and Haryana high court has quashed the termination of deputy superintendent of police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu in connection with gangster Lawrence Bishnoi interview controversy.
Sandhu, a 2016-batch officer, was dismissed by the Punjab government on January 2, 2025, for allegedly facilitating the recording of an interview of Bishnoi in police custody in September 2022 when the gangster was in a Kharar CIA facility.
In March 2023, a private news channel aired two interviews of Bishnoi. The Punjab Police had initially denied that these interviews took place within the state. Later, an SIT probe found that one of the interviews was conducted at Punjab Police facility in Kharar on the intervening night of September 3 and 4 in 2022 and the second interview was conducted in Rajasthan. Following alleged indictment of Sandhu by the SIT, he was terminated from service and a criminal case was registered.
He was dismissed from service by invoking powers under Article 311 (2) (b). Among other grounds, he had challenged the dismissal arguing that the order could have been passed after conducting inquiry and giving reasonable opportunity of him being heard, which was not done in the case in hand. He had also claimed that he was made a “scapegoat” as no other senior officer faced termination of service.
The court observed that the government has sought to justify the invocation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution on the premise that the petitioner had deliberately evaded service of the chargesheet and, consequently it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry against him.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the government has sought to justify the invocation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution on the premise that the petitioner had deliberately evaded service of the chargesheet and, consequently it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental inquiry against him.
{{/usCountry}}“.. it give(s) rise to a serious doubt as to whether the decision- making process was, in fact, fair, objective and uninfluenced by any prior determination of the outcome. If the decision to dismiss the petitioner had already been taken before the impugned order came to be passed, the subsequent invocation of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot be permitted to operate as a mere justification for dispensing with the departmental inquiry,” the bench of justice Namit Kumar observed, adding that the very foundation of the respondents’ conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately evaded service of the chargesheet is rendered doubtful by the manner in which the challan was sought to be served.
No attempt made to send chargesheet to petitioner’s permanent address: Court
The authorities were aware of the petitioner’s permanent address at Jalandhar and that the communications preceding the issuance of the chargesheet had been duly served upon him. Despite being in possession of his correct and known address, the chargesheet dated October 25, 2024 was sent to the petitioner’s old address at Chandigarh, from where he had already been transferred, it added.
“In such circumstances, the mere fact that the chargesheet could not be served at the said address could not, by itself, furnish any basis for recording a conclusion that the petitioner had deliberately evaded participation in the disciplinary proceedings,” the court said, adding that it has not come across material that showed that any genuine attempt was made to serve the chargesheet upon him at the permanent address.
“There is also no material to suggest that the petitioner had created a situation in which the holding of a departmental inquiry had become impracticable. Non-service of the chargesheet at an address from which the petitioner had already been transferred cannot be equated with deliberate evasion of service,” it said.
“This court has no hesitation in holding that the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority for dispensing with the departmental inquiry does not meet the constitutional standard prescribed under Article 311 (2) (b) of the constitution,” the bench of justice Namit Kumar said, while quashing the termination order and making it clear that the direction for reinstatement will be without prejudice to the right of the government to continue with departmental inquiry.