The main legal point established in the judgment is that holding an inquiry is a rule while dispensing with it is an exception, and the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must be sufficient and based on exceptional circumstances.

JUDGMENT

B.S. Walia, J. - Prayer in the petition under Article 226 / 227 of the Constitution of India is for the issuance of a writ, order or direction especially in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders, Annexures P/5 and P/6 dated 15.09.2020 passed by respondent No.3 dismissing the petitioners from service as also orders Annexures P/9 and P/10 dated 03.11.2020 passed by respondent No. 2 dismissing the appeals filed by the petitioners.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant petition are that the petitioners joined Punjab Police as Constables on 01.01.1994 and 01.01.1993 respectively whereafter they were promoted as Head Constables w.e.f. 22.07.2005 and 01.05.2013 respectively. Subsequently, the petitioners were given charge of ASI (Local Rank) vide orders, Annexures P/1 and P/2 dated 14.03.2018 and 13.02.2020 respectively and on 25.08.2020, petitioner No.1 i.e. Bikramjit Singh along with police patrolling party while going to village Mithumajra saw a person with his face covered with a mask coming on a motorcycle. On seeing the police party, said person tried to run away, whereupon members of the police party including petitioner No.1 nabbed said person who revealed his name as Didar Singh. Search of said person by a Gazetted Officer lead to recovery of 3 kgs of opium whereupon FIR No. 0168 dated 25.08.2020 (Annexure P/3) was registered against Didar Singh u/s 18, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.

3. Learned counsel contends that during investigation of FIR No. 0168 dated 25.08.2020, the Investigating Officer directed petitioner No. 1 to join one Angrej Singh in investigation and during investigation at Police Post, Bahadurgarh petitioner No.1 came to know that Angrej Singh who was brother of one Amrik Singh had made numerous calls to Didar Singh from whose possession, 3 kgs of opium was recovered. In the aforementioned circumstances, being wary of implication in the case on account of their nexus with drug cartels operating in the State of Punjab, Amrik Singh registered FIR No.10 dated 12.09.2020 under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, FS-1, Punjab, Mohali against the petitioners to divert attention of the police.

4. Learned counsel contends that as per the FIR registered by Amrik Singh, the petitioners had asked him for Rs.1 lakh to save his brother Angrej Singh from implication in FIR No. 0168 of 2020 and had told him to come to the Police Post on 09.09.2020 to negotiate the bribe amount which was settled at Rs.25,000/- and on the basis of said complaint, the Vigilance Bureau, registered FIR No.10 dated 12.09.2020 under Section 7, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 against the petitioners without verifying the allegations, whereafter a Police team raided the premises of Police Post Bahadurgarh on 12.09.2020 where the petitioners were posted and even though the raiding team did not find any incriminating evidence against the petitioners, yet took the petitioners into custody.

5. Learned counsel contends that while the petitioners were in custody, respondent No.3 in a completely arbitrary and illegal manner, without issuing any show cause notice or granting any opportunity of hearing and in complete contravention of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, dismissed the petitioners from service vide orders, Annexures P/5 and P/6 dated 15.09.2020.

6. Learned counsel contends that a perusal of the impugned orders, reveals that the only reasons given by respondent No.3 for dispensing with the regular departmental enquiry was that no witness would come forward to give a statement against the petitioners. Learned counsel contends that the same cannot under any circumstances be considered as a reasonable ground for dispensing with the enquiry as respondent No.3 failed to mention any cogent reason which would prevent a prospective witness from coming forward to give evidence against the petitioners. Learned counsel contends that it is