ASHOK KUMAR TIWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being aggrieved by order dated 16th January, 2020 passed by respondent no.2 by which his enrollment as Home Guard has been cancelled, has filed the instant petition. The impugned order was preceded by show-cause notice dated 25th October, 2019 calling upon him to show cause as to why his service as Home Guard should not be terminated as the respondents have come to know about the pendency of Criminal Case No. 73 of 2017 under Sections 147, 324, 323 & 308(wrongly mentioned as 307) I.P.C against him. The petitioner submitted his reply stating that he was wrongly implicated in the said case on account of a dispute relating to family property over which he is recorded as Bhumidar in the Revenue Records. The petitioner also stated that there is a cross case filed by him against the other side which was registered as Criminal Case No. 74 of 2017. He further submitted that both the cases are at the stage of evidence and it would take around six months for the proceedings to conclude.

(2.) The impugned order mentions about the receipt of reply from the petitioner and by simply stating that his explanation is not found to be satisfactory as he is involved in criminal case his services has been terminated.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner made two fold submissions; (i) it is urged that the second respondent while passing the impugned order has not considered the explanation of the petitioner, wherein he took a specific stand that he was falsely implicated in the criminal case on account of dispute relating to family property and that cross case is also pending against the other side. He has placed reliance on a judgment in case of M/s. Continental Indian Private Limited Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others Writ-C No. 26917 of 2019, wherein it was held that administrative orders have to pass the test of Article 14 , consequently, there should be an objective consideration of the reply submitted by the person; and (ii) the second respondent while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the Supreme Court judgement in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 wherein, the Supreme Court has laid down the following guidelines:-