.webp)
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the dismissal of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Gursher Singh Sandhu, holding that the Punjab Government failed to show any objective circumstance that made a regular departmental inquiry against him impracticable under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution.
Justice Namit Kumar, in a judgment delivered on September 1, 2026, held that an apprehension that an employee may not cooperate with disciplinary proceedings, by itself, was not enough to dispense with the inquiry. The Court allowed Sandhu’s writ petition, set aside the January 2, 2025 dismissal order and directed his reinstatement with all consequential benefits, while leaving the respondents free to continue the pending departmental inquiry in accordance with law.
Background of the Case
The case arose from disciplinary action against Sandhu in connection with the televised interview of Lawrence Bishnoi while he was in Punjab Police custody at CIA Staff, Kharar.
Sandhu had been issued show-cause notices in September and October 2024, followed by suspension and a charge-sheet. The department later invoked Article 311(2)(b), which permits dismissal without a regular inquiry when the competent authority records reasons showing that holding such an inquiry is not reasonably practicable.
The State argued that Sandhu had failed to cooperate with the disciplinary process and had deliberately avoided service of the charge-sheet. It therefore maintained that the constitutional provision had been properly invoked.
Court’s Observation
The High Court found that the material on record did not establish any genuine circumstance making a departmental inquiry impracticable.
The Court noted that threats, intimidation, coercion of witnesses, interference with an inquiry officer or tampering with evidence could potentially justify dispensing with an inquiry. However, it held:
“However, no such circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case.”
The Court also questioned the department’s reliance on alleged evasion of the charge-sheet. Sandhu’s known permanent address was in Jalandhar, while the charge-sheet had been sent to an old Chandigarh address from which he had already been transferred. The Court found no material showing that a genuine attempt had been made to serve him at his correct address.
Significantly, the Court observed that Sandhu subsequently participated in the departmental proceedings after receiving the necessary documents. This, according to the Court, undermined the claim that an inquiry was not reasonably practicable.
Decision
The High Court concluded that the satisfaction recorded by the competent authority did not meet the constitutional standard under Article 311(2)(b).
It therefore quashed the January 2, 2025 dismissal order and directed the State to reinstate Sandhu with consequential benefits. The Court clarified that the reinstatement would not prevent the respondents from continuing the departmental inquiry already pending before former High Court Judge Justice Rajiv Narain Raina.
Case Details
Case Title: Gursher Singh Sandhu v. State of Punjab & others
Case Number: CWP-878-2025 (O&M)
Judge: Justice Namit Kumar
Decision Date: September 1, 2026
