JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants and Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for respondent-petitioner. 2. The present intra-Court appeal under Chapter-VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 8th September, 2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55019 of 2007 (Azeem Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the issue as to whether the respondent-petitioner had successfully completed his training or he had adopted unfairmeans in the final examination of the training, thereby he was debarred from completing the training could be a ground for disengaging the petitioner, who was appointed on compassionate ground, has escaped the attention of the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned Standing Counsel states that even if nature of appointment of a person appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules is substantive in nature, yet passing of the training examination is a condition precedent for being appointed as constable in U.P. Police Service and therefore, if a person does not qualify the training examination, his services are liable to be terminated, which aspect has not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 5. Normally this Court would have remanded the matter to the learned Single Judge for decision afresh on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, however, we are not following such course only because it has been stated on behalf of the respondent-petitioner by Sri Vijay Gautam, Advocate that even assuming without admitting that the petitioner is alleged to be involved in copying during final examination of training, the minimum required in the facts of the case from the appointing authority was to afford an opportunity of hearing to the respondent-petitioner to rebut the report submitted by the enquiry committee and it is only thereafter that the appointing authority could have taken a decision either way. Since such procedure has not been followed, he would submit that the order impugned in the writ petition could not be sustained. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants submits that such notice shall be issued within two weeks from today and fresh decision shall be taken provided the petitioner cooperates in the enquiry. 7. Since such procedure has not been followed, he would submit that the order impugned in the writ petition could not be sustained. 6. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-appellants submits that such notice shall be issued within two weeks from today and fresh decision shall be taken provided the petitioner cooperates in the enquiry. 7. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is continuing in service because of the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8th September, 2008 i.e. for nearly 9 years as on date, as is stated by the learned counsel for the writ petition, we deem it fit and proper to dispose of the present intra-Court appeal by directing as under: The appellant may issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner with reference to the report so heavily relied upon before us enclosed at pages 95 and 96 to the paper book as well as on other ground as may be legally available within two weeks from today. Petitioner shall respond to the show-cause notice within two weeks thereafter. The appellant after examining the records and after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner shall pass a reasoned and speaking order in the matter. The proceedings in that regard shall be positively concluded within eight weeks and thereafter abide the decision of the appointing authority as aforesaid. For a period of eight weeks status quo as on date with regard to the functioning of the petitioner shall be maintained. The judgment of the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present intra-Court appeal stands modified to the extent as indicated above. 8. The present intra-Court appeal is disposed of subject to the observations made above.