Lawrence Bishnoi interview: Ex-DSP challenges dismissal, HC seeks state’s response by Feb 20

The Punjab government dismissed Sandhu on January 2 by invoking powers under Article 311 (2) (b) for allegedly facilitating the recording of Bishnoi’s interview in September 2022 when the gangster was lodged in the Kharar CIA facility.

In March 2023, a private news channel aired two interviews of Bishnoi. The second one was later found to be recorded in a Rajasthan jail.

The plea says the dismissal order could have been passed after conducting an inquiry and giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to clear his stand.

The same can be exempted only on the satisfaction of certain reason to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold such an inquiry, the plea added.

It says disciplinary proceedings have already been initiated against him and a show-cause notice was also issued.

The petitioner himself repeatedly approached the respondents to grant him the fair opportunity of hearing and providing relevant documents to prove his innocence. But no response was received, the plea added.

It further argues that the respondents had already made up their minds to dismiss the petitioner from service by making him a “scapegoat” which is proved by the fact that on December 16, 2024, before any findings coming by an inquiry officer or by an officer appointed by the high court, the government had already decided to dismiss the petitioner.

The high court appointed a retired judge as the inquiry officer on December 18.

“In the absence of any finding by the inquiry officer or grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the action is completely illegal,” it says, adding that the inquiry officer is yet to give any finding or report and in the absence of the same, he could not have been dismissed.

Referring to the termination order, the plea says it was claimed that the petitioner evaded attempts to receive a chargesheet which is “incorrect”.

The respondents had his permanent address of Jalandhar, where all other correspondence was being received. But the chargesheet against him was pasted at a Chandigarh address, which was his official address and was locked during this period.

The plea also says that the high court had categorically directed that action should not be confined only to low-level officials but the government made him a “scapegoat”, whereas no other officials, including the SSP, had been given any such punishment.

In fact, the officials of the anti-gangster task force, who had overall supervisory control over the gangster, were never attributed any role by the SIT and the petitioner was punished, it says.

The high court bench of Justice Jagmohan Bansal has sought a response from the state government by February 20.