DINESH KUMAR DWIVEDI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

(2.) Though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 but the learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement at bar that he does not propose to file rejoinder affidavit. However, the parties have made a statement that the matter be decided at the admission stage itself. With the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at this stage.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Honorary Platoon Commander Home Guard Shankargarh, Prayagraj. However, according to the petitioner post lodging of an FIR bearing no. 0087 of 2018 on 15/8/2018 under Sec. 342, 294, 323 and 34 IPC, a charge sheet came to be submitted. However, the candidature of the petitioner came to be cancelled by the District Commandant Home Guard Prayagraj on 28/10/2023 in light of the provisions contained in the Government Order dtd. 18/2/2023, wherein a classification has been made for the offences where punishment is over and above 7 years and below 7 years. Against the said order, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commandant General Home Guard Eastern Region, Prayagraj, which came to be rejected on 1/5/2024.