JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Sharma, J.—The controversy involved 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. 3. 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/Appropriate 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. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon two decisions of this Court reported in 2007(1) ADJ 143, Raghunath Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 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. 5. These cases have come up for admission/final disposal before this Court. This Court has already passed interim orders staying the operation of such dismissal/termination orders impugned in these petitions. The petitioners are continuing in service by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. 6. 5. These cases have come up for admission/final disposal before this Court. This Court has already passed interim orders staying the operation of such dismissal/termination orders impugned in these petitions. The petitioners are continuing in service by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court. 6. Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel, after some deliberations and arguments, made a suggestion, which is also agreed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that since the order of dismissal/termination is violative of the legal provisions and this Court has already set at rest the controversy raised through the petitions in the above mentioned judgments, these cases can also to be dealt with in the light of the observations made by this Court while disposing of said writ petitions, this Court may quash the impugned orders and may direct the appointing authority to have a fresh look into the matter and pass appropriate orders, which he deems fit, in accordance with law and following the procedure prescribed under the relevant Service Rules and U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1991 and the other relevant provisions, if applicable. 7. This Court after hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, has appreciated the suggestions. 8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed. The orders of dismissal/termination impugned in the writ petitions are quashed. The consequences shall follow. It is open for the Appointing Authority to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. ————