Article 311(2)(b) Is Not a Shortcut to Dismissal: Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes DSP Gursher Sandhu’s Removal in Lawrence Bishnoi Interview Case, Orders Reinstatement

Case Name: Gursher Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab and Others

Date of Judgment: 1 September 2026

Citation: CWP-878-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Namit Kumar

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution cannot be invoked merely because a delinquent employee is alleged to have been uncooperative or to have avoided service of a charge-sheet. Dispensing with a departmental inquiry is constitutionally permissible only when objective and contemporaneous circumstances make it genuinely impracticable to hold the inquiry. A mechanical recital that an inquiry is “not reasonably practicable,” without supporting material and a proximate connection between the prevailing circumstances and the inability to conduct the inquiry, does not satisfy the constitutional requirement.

The Court further held that the gravity of the allegations cannot substitute the procedural protection guaranteed by Article 311(2). Allegations of serious misconduct may justify suspension and initiation of disciplinary proceedings, but do not, by themselves, permit the State to dismiss an employee without an inquiry. An SIT report recommending departmental action was in the nature of a preliminary report and could not be treated as conclusive proof of guilt or substantive evidence warranting summary dismissal.

Summary: The petitioner, Gursher Singh Sandhu, was serving as a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Punjab Police. The controversy arose from an interview of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi allegedly recorded during the intervening night of 3 and 4 September 2022, when Bishnoi was in police custody at the CIA Staff premises in Kharar. The interview was subsequently telecast in March 2023 and became the subject of investigation and proceedings before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

The State alleged that the CIA Staff, Kharar, was under the direct control of the DSP (Investigation), SAS Nagar, and that inadequate supervision had enabled the interview to take place, thereby causing serious reputational damage to the Punjab Police and the State Government. The petitioner disputed any responsibility for Bishnoi’s inner security, contending that it was entrusted to the Anti-Gangster Task Force and its specially deployed personnel.

Two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 19 September 2024 and 14 October 2024. He submitted replies and sought the documents necessary to furnish an effective defence. On 25 October 2024, he was placed under suspension and a charge-sheet was issued. However, on 2 January 2025, the State abandoned the regular disciplinary process and dismissed him from service by invoking Article 311(2)(b), principally alleging a non-cooperative attitude and evasion of service of the charge-sheet.

The High Court found that the record did not support the allegation that the petitioner had made himself unavailable or obstructed the disciplinary proceedings. He had responded to the show-cause notices and requested the documents required to answer the allegations. Moreover, the charge-sheet was attempted to be served at his former Chandigarh residence even though the authorities were aware of his permanent address at Jalandhar and his subsequent place of posting. Failure to effect service at an outdated address could not be equated with deliberate evasion.

The Court observed that even if a delinquent employee fails to cooperate after valid service, the applicable service rules permit the departmental inquiry to proceed ex parte. Mere absence or non-participation, therefore, does not ordinarily render an inquiry constitutionally impracticable. To invoke Article 311(2)(b), the authority must identify circumstances such as intimidation of witnesses, tampering with evidence, interference with the Inquiry Officer or some comparable obstruction. No such material existed against the petitioner.

The SIT report dated 9 October 2024 had itself recommended the initiation of appropriate departmental action against the concerned police officers for alleged misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty. The Court held that such a preliminary report could not be treated as conclusive proof warranting dismissal without affording the petitioner an opportunity to defend himself in a regular inquiry.

The Court also noted that a joint departmental inquiry arising from the same occurrence was continuing against nine other police officers and officials. If an inquiry concerning the same allegations and occurrence could proceed against the other officials, the State was required to demonstrate some special circumstance peculiar to the petitioner that made an inquiry against him impracticable. No such distinguishing circumstance was shown, making the selective invocation of Article 311(2)(b) against the petitioner legally unsustainable.

Significantly, even after the dismissal order, the department called the petitioner to participate in the pending inquiry. After receiving the complete charge-sheet and documents, he appeared before the Inquiry Officer on multiple dates and submitted his reply. The Court found that this conduct directly contradicted the State’s assertion that holding an inquiry against him was not reasonably practicable. The State could not simultaneously claim that an inquiry was impossible and continue the same inquiry after dismissing him.

The Court also expressed serious doubt about the fairness of the decision-making process because the State had conveyed its decision to dismiss the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Referring to the principles laid down in Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427, the Court reiterated that disciplinary and quasi-judicial proceedings must be conducted with an open mind and cannot be reduced to an empty formality after the authority has prejudged the outcome.

Ultimately, the Court held that the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority did not meet the constitutional threshold under Article 311(2)(b). Once the State had found it feasible to initiate a regular disciplinary inquiry, it could abandon that process only upon the emergence of a subsequent circumstance that genuinely rendered the inquiry impracticable. The dismissal order disclosed no such circumstance.

Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the dismissal order. The State was directed to reinstate Gursher Singh Sandhu in service with all consequential benefits.

The reinstatement was made without prejudice to the State’s right to proceed in accordance with law by continuing the departmental inquiry already pending against the petitioner and the other police officers before the Inquiry Officer, Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, former Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. Thus, the Court did not exonerate the petitioner on the merits of the disciplinary allegations; it invalidated the summary dismissal because the mandatory constitutional conditions for dispensing with an inquiry were not satisfied.