Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5403 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dhirendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.08.2017, whereby the services of petitioner were terminated. Case of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard. The petitioner claims to have cleared the training and continued to work as a Home Guard. It is stated that on 25.08.2017 an order came to be passed dismissing the services of the petitioner on the ground that he has been convicted by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Deoria in the judgment dated 16.01.2008, which fact the petitioner had not disclosed while obtaining the appointment, as such the termination order was passed.
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that although it is true that an F.I.R. was registered as Case Crime No.132 of 2020, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 504, 302, 34, 323 and 325 I.P.C. against various persons including the petitioner in which a charge-sheet no.106 was also filed on 30.06.2000, however, the petitioner was never convicted vide judgement dated 16.01.2008 and in fact as the petitioner was juvenile, his case was segregated and Case No.330 of 2014 is still pending against the petitioner before the Juvenile Justice Board. He argues that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of the said order which has been passed on wrong facts. Petitioner was never convicted vide judgment dated 16.01.2008. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed a report issued by the Circle Officer, Barhaj, District Deoria to the effect that the case of petitioner is pending before the Juvenile Justice Board and was not convicted in the judgment dated 16.01.2008.
In the counter affidavit also, it has been stated that the case against the petitioner is sub-judice before the Juvenile Justice Board and the petitioner was not convicted vide judgment dated 16.01.2008.
A copy of judgment passed by the Special Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Deoria dated 16.01.2008 has been produced before me which does not disclose the conviction of the petitioner. Thus, the order dismissing the services on the ground that the petitioner was convicted vide judgment dated 16.01.2008 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The respondent shall be at liberty to pass fresh orders, if so advised, in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court passed in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
The writ petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.
Order Date :- 28.7.2021 Atul