Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) AS the common question of facts and law involved in the above mentioned cases, they are taken up together for common orders.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 29.5.2008 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Agra dismissing the petitioner from service invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Subordinate Police Officers Punishment & Appeal Rules, 1991 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1991 for the sake of brevity] .
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was always appreciated by the higher authorities for his good character, utmost devotion and dedication in the department but the impugned orders of dismissal of petitioner's services are not based on the correct facts of the case vis -a -vis the same are violative of Article of the Constitution of India. He submits that the impugned order is not only contrary to the procedure as transcribed under Rules, 1991 but it also clearly contrary to the provisions of Article as provided under the Constitution of India.;