ORDER : – Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved, on the joint request of the parties, the matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Facts are taken from W. P. No. 22257/2021.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calls in question the validity of order of dismissal dated 30-9-2021.

3. A report dated 14-9-20201 was forwarded from the desk of Superintendent of Police, Raisen to the office of DIG, Hoshangabad Range, stating that on 8-9-20201, the present petitioners and one Sub-Inspector Keshav Sharma in intoxicated condition without any rhyme and reason misbehaved one Mr. Surendra Tiwari and kept him in the police station, though no cognizable offence was registered against Mr. Surendra Tiwari nor was he being required in any connection. The report further states that the said incident tarnished Mr. Surendra Tiwari’s image which in turn has malign the name of the force. Along with the report, a preliminary enquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Raisen was also sent, which reveal that despite no offence being registered against Mr. Surendra Tiwari, nor being he wanted for anything, petitioners and his colleagues forcibly brought him to the police station in handcuffs while abusing and beating him. The report further mentioned that Mr. Surendra Tiwari and his family members were threatened for a compromise. As the act of petitioners and his colleague was derogatory to the dignity of the department and violative of the provisions contained in clause 64 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations Act, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, who submitted their explanation/reply that while on duty for night petrol on 7/8-9-2021, they found Mr. Surendra Tiwari roaming on the road at 12 P.M. in the night. The petitioners when stopped him and asked as to why he is on road at mid night, he misbehaved and used abusive language with the petitioners stating that he is the ex-president of BJP in district Raisen and further threatened to get them removed from the service. According to the petitioners, since Mr. Surendra Tiwari misbehaved with the policemen in duty, he was taken to the police station, where he called higher ranking police officers and when SDOP came to the police station, he went back to his home.

4. Reply submitted by petitioners was found not satisfactory, the respondent authority considering that the action of petitioners was in utter disregard and standard set up by the Human Rights Commission and violative of the Police Regulations and as the above incident had malign and lowered the dignity and name of the force and also created a law and order situation, reached to a conclusion that the continuation of the petitioners in the service is not in the interest of police force and dismissed them from service taking recourse to Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India.

5. The aforesaid order is assailed on the ground that major penalty of dismissal has been affected upon the petitioners without conducting any regular departmental enquiry. It is urged that the complaint was not filed by the alleged victim, i.e., Mr. Surendra Tiwari, but by a third person, i.e., Pankaj Shrivastava, who is the BJP Mandal Adhyaksh after two days of the incident at the instance of local politicians, who pressurized the higher police authorities to put the petitioners under suspension and then only on the basis of preliminary enquiry in which petitioners were never afforded any opportunity of hearing, removed the petitioners from service. It is argued that the reasons assigned for dispensing with the regular enquiry is also not as per the provisions of Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel placed reliance on (2006) 13 SCC 581, Tarsem Singh vs. State of Punjab in support of his contentions.

6. Per contra, Shri Subodh Kathar, Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State has supported the order of dismissal and stated that pro