Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41186 Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7800 of 2025 Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Singh (S.I. Pno - 992760063) Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Charitra Pandey,Shashank Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 09.07.2025 whereby petitioner has been dismissed in terms of Rule 8 (2) (a) of the U.P. Police Officer of the Subordinate Ranks, (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991. 3. It appears from perusal of record that earlier petitioner was dismissed from service in terms of the same provision vide order dated 28.02.2024, which was challenged in Writ-A No. 2153 of 2024 on the ground that petitioner's dismissal has taken place in light of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India dispensing with an inquiry on the ground of conviction of petitioner in a criminal case. 4. The aforesaid writ petition i.e., Writ-A No. 2153 of 2024 was allowed vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 and thereafter placed reliance on various judgments of this Court as well as the aforesaid Rules of 1991 Rule to hold that although the authorities have a right to dismiss a government servant on conviction in criminal case but the said bar is subject to condition that before passing the order finally terminating the services of such an employee, the authority shall consider conduct of such employee leading to his conviction and the punishment which is to be inflicted. 5. In view thereof, the matter was remitted to the competent authority to first issue a show cause notice to petitioner and invite his explanation within four weeks and pass appropriate orders after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. 6. The impugned order clearly indicates the fact that subsequent to service of aforesaid judgment upon competent authority, a show cause notice dated 02.05.2025 was issued to petitioner in pursuance of which the petitioner by means of letter dated 15.05.2025 sought one month's time to submit his reply as well as seeking information on eleven points. In terms thereof, time of seven days' was provided to petitioner. Whereafter the petitioner again submitted a letter dated 26.05.2025 reiterating his demand. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by means of aforesaid letters, petitioner has sought various documents, which were being relied upon by the authorities but said documents have never been provided to him. It has also been submitted that opposite parties have not considered the aspect that conviction of petitioner is under challenge but the appeal has not yet been decided and therefore they were required to await outcome of appeal. 8. Considering aforesaid submissions, it is evident that various judgments of this Court as noticed in judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 are clearly on the aspect that even if dismissal from service is resorted to without holding any inquiry, it is incumbent upon the authority concerned to scrupulously examine conduct of government servant which led to his conviction before exercise of such jurisdiction. 9. The nature of guilt established as also the possible defence available to government servant are aspects which also require consideration. It is evident that coordinate Bench of this Court has clearly enunciated the said law in its judgment and order dated 12.03.2025. However, upon perusal of impugned order, it is evident that it has been passed without taking such factor into consideration and same has been passed only on account of the fact that petitioner has failed to submit his reply. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, once specific direction had been issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 specifically indicated in paragraph no. 12 and 14 while discussing the laws on the aforesaid aspect in paragraph no. 10 of the judgment, it was incumbent upon the authority to have considered the same and failing to do so renders impugned order vitiated. 11. In view thereof, impugned order dated 09.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh strictly in accordance with directions issued by this Court in its judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 in Writ-A No. 2153 of 2025. For the said purpose, petitioner is granted liberty to file response to the show cause notice dated 02.05.2025 within a period of fifteen days from today. 12. It is made clear that show cause notice dated 2.5.2025 does not entail initiation of departmental proceedings and is only for purposes of complying with directions issued by this Court earlier and therefore, there was no occasion for petitioner to have required any documents being provided to him. 13. In view thereof, competent authority shall be at liberty to pass orders afresh in light of observations made here-in-above and in judgment and order dated 12.03.2025 within a period of six weeks from the date reply is submitted by petitioner to show cause notice. 14. Resultantly petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. 15. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 18.7.2025 Virendra Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench