LAWYER SIBLING LOGO (1)
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • News
  • Updates
  • Constitution
    • Constitutional Laws
  • Laws
    • Civil Law
    • Criminal Law
    • Family Law
    • Real Estate Law
    • Business Law
    • Cyber & IT Law
    • Employee Law
    • Finance Law
    • International Law
  • Special Act
    • Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act)
    • Consumer Protection Act
    • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Act (NDPS)
    • The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO)
  • Bare Act

Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes DSP’s dismissal in Lawrence Bishnoi interview case, orders reinstatement

04/09/2026BlogNo Comments

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the dismissal of Punjab Police DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu, who was removed from service over allegations that he facilitated the recording of a television interview of gangster Lawrence Bishnoi while the latter was in police custody.

Justice Namit Kumar held that the Punjab government had failed to establish the exceptional circumstances required to dispense with a regular departmental enquiry under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution. The Court consequently set aside Sandhu’s dismissal and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits.

The reinstatement, however, will remain subject to the State’s right to continue the departmental enquiry against him in accordance with law.

The controversy dates back to a television interview of jailed gangster Lawrence Bishnoi, which was telecast in March 2023. The interview sparked widespread controversy as Bishnoi was purportedly interviewed while in police custody.

Subsequent investigations were conducted into the circumstances under which the interview was recorded. The Punjab government alleged that Sandhu had facilitated the recording of the interview while Bishnoi was lodged at the CIA Staff, Kharar, and had also been in contact with the journalist involved in conducting the interview.

Based on the allegations, the State initiated action against the DSP. On January 2, 2025, Sandhu was dismissed from service by invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.

Article 311(2)(b) permits the government, in exceptional circumstances, to dispense with a regular departmental enquiry where it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an enquiry.

Sandhu challenged his dismissal before the High Court.

The High Court found that the State had not demonstrated any objective circumstances to justify invoking Article 311(2)(b).

Justice Kumar observed that the seriousness of allegations against a government officer, or a mere apprehension that the officer may not cooperate with the enquiry, cannot by itself justify dispensing with the safeguards of a regular departmental proceeding.

The Court held that there must be genuine and objective circumstances showing that it was not reasonably practicable to conduct an enquiry.

A significant factor considered by the Court was that departmental proceedings against Sandhu continued even after his dismissal.

The DSP was supplied with a charge-sheet and appeared before the Enquiry Officer, Justice Rajiv Narain Raina (Retd.). He also participated in the proceedings on subsequent dates.

The Court found that this subsequent conduct undermined the State’s contention that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry against Sandhu in the first place.

Holding that the constitutional power under Article 311(2)(b) could not be invoked merely on the basis of the gravity of the allegations, Justice Kumar quashed the dismissal order dated January 2, 2025.

The Court directed Sandhu’s reinstatement with all consequential benefits but clarified that the Punjab government would be free to continue the departmental enquiry against him in accordance with law.

The post Punjab & Haryana High Court quashes DSP’s dismissal in Lawrence Bishnoi interview case, orders reinstatement appeared first on India Legal.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Recent Posts

  • Nandigram By-Poll: Supreme Court declines to intervene in Congress candidate Milan pradhan’s interim bail
  • Delhi High Court Justice Prateek Jalan recuses from hearing Delhi Gymkhana Club eviction plea
  • Delhi High Court asks authorities to decide within six months on SOP for police body-worn cameras
  • Supreme Court: High Court should not suggest custodial interrogation is necessary while deciding anticipatory bail
  • Delhi High Court seeks clarity on legal framework for structural audits after Satya Niketan building collapse

Recent Comments

  1. Phone Tracking In India - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  2. Section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA
  3. The Evolution of Indian Penal Code 1860: Key Provisions and Relevance Today - lawyer Sibling on The Constitution of INDIA

Follow us for more

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
YouTube
Instagram
DisclaimerPrivacy PolicyTerms and Conditions
All Rights Reserved © 2023
  • Login
  • Sign Up
Forgot Password?
Lost your password? Please enter your username or email address. You will receive a link to create a new password via email.