GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.

1. The petitioner herein assails the following three orders:

i. Order dated 24.2.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3– Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana Rural vide which services of the petitioner were terminated by invoking provisions of Section 311 (b) (2) of Constitution of India;

ii. Order dated 26.10.2017 (Annexure P-3) passed by DIG, Ludhiana Range, Ludhiana vide which the appeal filed by petitioner challenging order dated 24.2.2017 (Annexure P-1) has been dismissed; And

iii. Order dated 29.4.2019 (Annexure P-4) passed by DGP, Punjab vide which the appeal filed by petitioner challenging order dated 24.2.2017 (Annexure P-1) has been dismissed.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the Punjab Police in the year 2011 and was working as MHC at Police Post Kaunke Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana in the year 2017. One FIR i.e. FIR No.10 dated 20.2.2017 was lodged at Police Station Bhadaur under Sections 149, 148, 307, 427, 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code against Jagjiwanjot Singh @ Joti, Gurjit Singh @ Harjit Singh @ Jit Singh, Simarjit Singh @ Gaggi, Baldev Singh Debi, Navjot Singh @ Joti and Joginder Singh, wherein it was inter-alia alleged that Navjot Singh @ Joti had fired from his gun. Subsequently, it transpired that the gun used by Navjot Singh @ Joti was the one in respect of which the petitioner, who was working as MHC at Police Post Kaunke Kalan, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana, had issued a fake receipt regarding its deposit in armoury, whereas the gun had never actually been deposited and always remained with said Navjot Singh @ Joti. It is further the case of petitioner that 3 days after lodging of the aforesaid FIR i.e. FIR No.10 dated 20.2.2017, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 24.2.2017 without holding any inquiry purportedly by way of invoking provisions of Section 311 of Constitution of India as regards dispensation of inquiry.

3. The short point raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were no such grounds which could justify dispensation of an inquiry and that neither the petitioner had been convicted in respect of any criminal case nor were there any such circumstances, which could show that holding an inquiry was not practicable. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, in order to hammer forth his aforesaid submissions, places reliance upon judgments passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in (2014)13 SCC 244 Risal Singh vs. State of Haryana and Reena Rani v. State of Haryana, (2012) 10 SCC 215.

4. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel submitted that since it is a case wherein serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner inasmuch it was found that he was having links with anti-social elements and had even furnished a bogus receipt regarding deposit of a gun belonging to Navjot Singh @ Joti in the armoury, whereas the same had never been deposited, it was certainly not feasible or practical to allow the petitioner to continue in service.

5. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

6. Since it is a case where services of the petitioner have been terminated, admittedly without holding any inquiry, it is apposite to refer to the relevant provisions providing for dispensation of an inquiry. Article 311 of Constitution of India reads hereinunder:

“Article 311, Constitution of India 1950

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank until he has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him:

Provided that this clause shall not apply—

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the gro