B.K.NARAYANA,J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Siyaram Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties this writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage without calling for any counter-affidavit. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 11.7.2008 passed by Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Nagar, respondent No. 2, by which order petitioner has been dismissed from his service on the post of Sub-Inspector.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, challenging the order, contended that no reasons have been given for dispensing holding of the enquiry and dismissal of the petitioners, invoking the power under Rule 8 (2)(b) of the Rules. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons having been recorded for dispensing holding of the enquiry, invoking of power under Rule 8 (2) (b), is unjustified. He has placed reliance on judgment of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (1991) 1 SCC 362;;