JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of orders passed by authorities whereby he was dismissed from service without conducting inquiry as contemplated by Rule 16.24 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (in short ‘PPR’) read with Article 311 of Constitution of India.

2. The petitioner joined Police force SPO in 1994. He was assigned constabulary number in 1996. In 2000, eight criminal cases were registered against him and he was arrested. The Disciplinary Authority invoking Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India dismissed him from service without conducting inquiry. He unsuccessful preferred appeal before Appellate Authority followed by revision before Revisionary Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent dispensed with inquiry without any cogent reason. There was no material before disciplinary authority which compelled him to invoke Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The disciplinary authority mechanically dispensed with inquiry. Act of respondent was in violation of judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Union of India Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel”, (1985) 3 SCC 398. The petitioner was implicated in 8 criminal cases, however was acquitted in all the cases. His acquittal indicates that he was wrongly implicated in all the cases in a short span of two years. The higher authorities have mechanically rejected his appeal/revision.

4. Learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner was dismissed from service because he had links with terrorists and anti- social elements. SSP under compelled circumstances in exercise of power conferred by Clause (b) of second proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India dispensed with inquiry.

5. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

6. Different Benches of Supreme Court including a Constitution Bench in “Syed Yakoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan”, AIR 1964 SC 477 and a two judge bench recently in “Central Council for Research in Ayurvedic Sciences and another Vs Bikartan Das and others” 2023 SCC Online SC 996 have reminded us that there are two cardinal principles of law governing issuance of writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the Constitution of India i.e. (i) High Court does not exercise the powers of Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record; (ii) in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. It is perfectly open for the writ court, exercising this flexible power to pass such orders as public interest dictates & equity projects. The High Court would be failing in its duty if it does not notice equitable consideration and mould the final order in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. Any other approach would render the High Court a normal court of appeal which it is not. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals. Error of jurisdiction includes order by inferior court or tribunal without jurisdiction or in excess of it or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction.

A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure