High Court Overturns Dismissal of DSP in High-Profile Interview Case
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reversed the dismissal of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu, who was previously terminated by the Punjab government. The dismissal related to allegations that Sandhu facilitated a television interview with notorious gangster Lawrence Bishnoi while the latter was in custody. The judgment [Gursher Singh Sandhu v State of Punjab and Other] was delivered by Justice Namit Kumar on September 1.
Judicial Review of Dismissal Order
The court found that the Punjab government’s decision to dismiss Sandhu without a departmental inquiry violated constitutional standards as outlined in Article 311(2)(b) of the Indian Constitution. This particular article allows the state to bypass a regular inquiry under specific circumstances. However, the court determined that the conditions for such an action were not met in this case.
Justice Kumar’s ruling emphasized that the government’s satisfaction in bypassing the inquiry did not meet constitutional requirements. Consequently, Sandhu’s dismissal was quashed, but the court allowed for the possibility of resuming a previously initiated departmental inquiry. This inquiry, led by retired Justice Rajiv Narain Raina, was halted after the decision to dismiss Sandhu without an inquiry.
The Controversial Interviews
The case centers around television interviews with Lawrence Bishnoi, which aired on ABP Sanjha in March 2023. Bishnoi, who is implicated in the murder of singer Sidhu Moosewala, was in the custody of the CIA Staff, Mohali, when the interviews were recorded. Sandhu, stationed in Mohali at the time, was accused of facilitating these interviews with journalist Jagwinder Patial. However, Sandhu denied involvement, claiming no role in Bishnoi’s detention or investigation. He argued that the Anti-Gangster Task Force (AGTF) was responsible for Bishnoi’s security.
Legal Battle and Court Findings
Sandhu challenged his dismissal, arguing that a regular inquiry was necessary before terminating his service. The Punjab government justified its decision by citing Sandhu’s alleged non-cooperation and unauthorized absence as reasons for not holding a traditional inquiry. Despite this, the court noted that Sandhu had participated in the preliminary proceedings and sought relevant documents to respond effectively to show-cause notices.
The court highlighted that merely labeling Sandhu’s non-cooperation or absence as obstacles to an inquiry was not constitutionally justifiable. It was determined that Sandhu neither evaded the proceedings nor rendered himself entirely unavailable. As a result, the court ordered Sandhu’s reinstatement with all associated benefits.
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate Deepinder Singh Patwalia, along with advocates Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Gaurav Jagota, and Edward George Masih, represented Sandhu. The State of Punjab was represented by Additional Advocate General PIP Singh and advocates Anisha, Amitoj Bir Singh, Sakshi Sehgal, and Gurvishwraj.
