BRIJ NATH YADAV Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at this stage under the Rules of Court.

(3.) Petitioner who was working as Sub Inspector in U.P. Police Force has filed the instant writ petition challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 30.9.2006 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Range, Gorakhpur dismissing him from the service invoking the provision of Rule 8(2)(b) of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the '1991 Rules') as well as the order dated 22.4.2008 passed by the Inspector General of Police dismissing the appeal on the ground that it has been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.