8. Preliminary inquiry:- Punjab Anti-corruption Establishment Rules, 1985, being not an act of legislation and having been made by the Executive Authority could not override the parent law and the F.I.R. registered without following the said Rules could not provide any right to the accused for the quashment of the same—Purpose of the inquiry as required under R.7 of the said rules was only to ascertain the identity of the complainant or informer and genuineness of the complaint or information—Nature of allegations made in the case required immediate action and any delay therein in the garb of fulfilment of legal requirements could tantamount to loss of incriminating evidence—No prejudice had been caused to the accuse due to non-initiation of the preliminary inquiry—Even after the registration of the case accused was to be provided an opportunity to rebut the allegations during the investigation. Allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused were supported by documentary evidence—Case against the accused was still at investigation stage and the Director had no occasion to exercise powers under R. 19 of the Punjab Anti-Corruption Establishment rules, 1985, which were not mandatory in nature and under the garb of the same he could not exercise the judicial powers and assume the role of court— Provisions of R. 19(3) of the rules did not provide any alternate remedy to the aggrieved person against eh orders of the Director passed in the exercise of his suo motu powers and as such the Constitutional petition was maintainable – Impugned order passed by the Director, Anti-Corruption quashing the F.I.R. registered against the accused was consequently declared to be without any lawful authority and was set aside—Constitutional petition was accepted accordingly