DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

Dismissed DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu moves court, challenges termination order

Among other things, Sandhu alleged that he had been unjustly made a scapegoat
  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
Advertisement

DSP Gursher Singh Sandhu has approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court, challenging his dismissal from service. Among other things, Sandhu alleged that he had been unjustly made a scapegoat. The petitioner contended that the dismissal order was passed on January 2, despite disciplinary proceedings already being underway against him.

Taking up the matter, Justice Jagmohan Bansal today issued a notice of motion to the state of Punjab and other respondents. The DSP claimed that the invocation of Article 311(2)(b) was unlawful and contrary to established legal principles, as he had not been provided the chargesheet or the necessary documents to effectively respond to the show cause notice. Despite multiple representations and emails requesting the required information, he was dismissed without being given an opportunity to present his defence, violating the principles of natural justice.

Article 311 of the Constitution empowers the competent authority to dismiss, remove, or demote an officer without a formal inquiry if deemed not reasonably practicable. The petition filed through counsel Bikramjit Singh Patwalia and Edward Augustine George was argued by senior counsel DS Patwalia.

Advertisement

The petition further contested the respondents’ claim that the DSP facilitated an interview with “gangster” Lawrence Bishnoi, calling this statement factually incorrect. The petitioner argued that the decision to bypass the departmental inquiry was arbitrary and designed to scapegoat him for reasons unrelated to his conduct.

He added the respondents failed to follow the mandatory procedural rules outlined in the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970, and the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which protected an individual’s right to a fair process. The petitioner prayed to the court to quash the dismissal order and direct the respondents to comply with legal and procedural requirements, including providing the necessary documents and an opportunity to be heard.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Home tlbr_img2 Opinion tlbr_img3 Classifieds tlbr_img4 Videos tlbr_img5 E-Paper