SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Rejoinder Affidavit filed today, taken on record.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 9.11.2014 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (respondent no.4), by which the petitioner's services on the post of Sub Inspector (Local Intelligence Unit), District Saharanpur had been terminated.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner obtained appointment on the post of Sub Inspector (Local Intelligence Unit), Saharanpur on 21.9.2001 under dying-in-harness scheme of the State Government. On 25.10.2004, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner requiring him to show cause within eight days why his services may not be terminated as the petitioner was alleged to have obtained appointment by playing fraud since the father of the petitioner was still alive and he had never been employed with any police force. Reference was also made to certain inquiry that had been conducted against the petitioner in this regard.

4. The petitioner appears to have responded to the aforesaid notice by his reply dated 5.11.2004 wherein he prayed to be supplied copies of the adverse material relied against him as also he prayed for 30 days time to submit his reply.

5. Thereafter, on 9.11.2004 the impugned order was passed whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the first place, the termination order has been passed in hurriedly inasmuch as despite specific application having been filed praying for 30 days time and to be first supplied copy of the adverse material being relied against him, the order of termination was passed without affording any reasonable time to the petitioner to submit his reply in violation of fundamental rules of natural justice.

7. Reliance has been placed on a recent decision of this Court in the case of Lata Verma Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others in Writ-A No. 37362 of 2013 decided on 6.12.2017. In that case, amongst others, the Court found that the inquiry had been concluded hurriedly without affording adequate opportunity to the delinquent to submit his reply.

8. Then, much emphasis has been led on the fact that dismissal from service is a major punishment and such punishment could not have been awarded except in accordance with law i.e. after initiation and conclusion of a proper/full fledged domestic inquiry. Reliance has been placed on the another decision of the learned Single Judge in the case of Ashok Kumar Constable No. 506 C.P. Vs. State of U.P & Others in Writ-A No. 16148 of 2010 decided on 14.11.2013.

9. Learned Standing Counsel on the other submits that the petitioner had participated in the inquiry that had been conducted in this case. Copy of such inquiry proceedings are claimed annexed to the counter affidavit. It has thus been submitted that the proper inquiry had been conducted before the termination order came to be passed.

10. It has further been submitted that in any case, it is undisputed that the petitioner's father Roop Kishor was alive in the year 2001 and he was never an employee of any civil police. Therefore, the objection being raised by the petitioner is largely academic and no useful purpose may be served even if the petitioner were to be allowed a full-fledged domestic inquiry

11. Third, it has been submitted that in any case remedy, if any available to the petitioner would be to file a statutory appeal under Rule 20 of U.P. Police Officers of Subordinate Ranks (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1991. That remedy having not been availed, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed for that reason also.

12. Having considered the argument so advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is seen that the writ petition was filed in the year 2005. Thirteen years have passed since then. Therefore, neither it would be of any use to relegate the petitioner to the forum