##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

202 CWP-6702-2007 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 29.01.2026

GURDIP SINGH ...Petitioner

Vs.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. …Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:- Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Sr. Advocate with

Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate

for the petitioner

Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab

***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

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.

1 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 09:05:31 :::

CWP-6702-2007 -2-

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

2 of 6

::: Downloaded on - 31-01-2026 09:05:32 :::

CWP-6702-2007 -3-

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

commi