B.K.NARAYANA, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A.
(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 22.9.2006 passed by Superintendent of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar, respondent No. 4, dismissing the petitioners from service, dispensing holding of the enquiry, under the provisions of U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991, (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel for the petitioners, 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 counsel for the petitioners 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.
(3.) LEARNED Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the Superintendent of Police, after considering the petitioners involvement in a case under Sections 354,323,504,506,I.P.C., and the entire facts and circumstances of the case was satisfied that retention of petitioners in police department was not at all in the public interest and their continuation in the police service may adversely affect the image of police department and as such the impugned order was passed and there is no illegality or irregularity in the same.;