RAKESH SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE controversy invoived in all the above writ petitions is one and the same and hence these are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(2.) HEARD Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel. In all the above writ petitions, the orders of dismissal termination passed against the police personnel, holding various posts in U.P. Subordinate Police Service at various districts have been assailed. In all these cases. Appointing Authority Approprlate Authority had exercised its power in dismissing the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Rule 8(2) of the U.P. Police Officers of Subor­dinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitionefs has placed reliance uppn two decisions of this Court reported in 2007(1) ADJ 143, Raghunath Singh v. 'State of U.P. andothers, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45046 of 2006 decided on 15.1.2007 and a Division Bench decision reported in 2006(1) ESC 374, State of U.P. and others v. Chandrika Prasad, (Special Appeal No. 1122 of 2001) decided on 19.10.2005).This Court has already provided that if reasons are not recorded in writing for dispensing with the detailed enquiry, as prescribed in the relevant Service Rules and Police Manual, such orders of termination dismissal passed in summary manner cannot be sustained in law.;