TARUN AGARWALA, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, the learned senior Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) SINCE all the petitions relate to the same incident, consequently all the writ petitions are decided together by a common judgment. The petitioners are constables and their services were dismissed with under Rule 8(2)(b) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punish­ment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 on the ground that it was not reasonably practi­cable to hold an inquiry.
(3.) IT transpires that the petitioners were posted at the Police Station and, within its vicinity, a theft was committed in a Jewellery shop. A first information report against the said theft was lodged at the police station. A preliminary inquiry was held and it was found that the petitioners could have avoided the theft, had they were cautious. The preliminary report, further stated that it would be a waste of time to hold a full-fledged inquiry against the petitioners. On the basis of this report, the disciplinary authority exercised his power under Rule 8(2)(b) of the aforesaid Rules and dismissed the petitioners from the service. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the said order, have filed separate writ petitions.;