Punjab and Haryana High Court rejects dismissal of DSP Sandhu, removed from service over recording of Lawrence interview

The case relates to Lawrence’s interview recorded on the intervening night of September 3 and 4, 2022, while he was in the custody of CIA Staff, Kharar. A Special Investigation Team constituted on the HC directions had recommended departmental action against police officers for alleged misconduct, negligence and dereliction of duty during his custody.

Sandhu, then Mohali DSP (Detective), received show-cause notices in September and October 2024. The second notice alleged he facilitated the interview by being present at CIA Staff, Kharar, and staying in close contact — telephonically and personally — with journalist Jagwinder Patial of a news channel. He was subsequently suspended and chargesheeted on October 25, 2024.

Sandhu had denied the allegations, submitting that Lawrence’s inner security at CIA Staff, Kharar, was being supervised by the Anti-Gangster Task Force, while the CIA was responsible only for the outer cordon and transit security.

Sandhu’s counsel, senior advocate D S Patwalia, assisted by advocate Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, argued that the power to dispense with an inquiry was exceptional and could not be exercised mechanically.

Referring to Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Sandhu submitted that dismissal was a major penalty and ordinarily required a regular departmental inquiry. He argued that the reasons cited by the state, including alleged evasion of service and non-cooperation, were flimsy.

On the allegation that Sandhu had deliberately evaded service of the chargesheet, his counsel submitted that the state was aware of his permanent address at Jalandhar, but the chargesheet was sent to his Chandigarh address after he had been transferred from there.

The HC found the record did not support the state’s case — presented through Additional Advocate General P I P Singh — of deliberate non-cooperation. It noted that Sandhu had replied to the first showcause notice, filed an interim reply to the second and sought documents needed to respond effectively.

“Mere recital in the order that an inquiry is not reasonably practicable would not, by itself, be sufficient. The competent authority must demonstrate a real and proximate nexus between the circumstances prevailing at the relevant time and the inability to hold departmental enquiry,” the HC said. It also noted that there was no material showing that Sandhu had threatened or intimidated witnesses, tampered with evidence or interfered with the functioning of the inquiry officer.

The HC further pointed out that the same departmental inquiry against nine officers was continuing before Justice Raina. “If the inquiry could be conducted against the other officers in respect of the same occurrence, the respondents were required to demonstrate some additional circumstance peculiar to the petitioner which made an inquiry against him impracticable. No such circumstance has been shown,” it added.

After his dismissal, Sandhu obtained the chargesheet through his counsel and appeared before Justice Raina virtually on November 1, 2025, besides appearing on later dates in March 2026. The proceedings concerning him were closed only on May 3, 2026 after the inquiry officer noted that he had already been dismissed.

“The aforesaid sequence of events demonstrates that there was, in fact, no impediment in conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner…,” the HC said.

It also rejected the state’s stand on service of the chargesheet, noting that there was no material to show that a genuine attempt was made to serve it at Sandhu’s known permanent address in Jalandhar.

The HC further held that once the department had considered it feasible to initiate regular disciplinary proceedings, abandoning it and resorting to Article 311(2)(b) required a subsequent or newly-arisen circumstance making the inquiry not reasonably practicable.