Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22088 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10127 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mohd. Mustakeem Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshika Agarwal,Siddharth Khare,Vishal Agarwal Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Nath Rai,C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Misra,Vikas Sahai Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J. Heard Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel assisted by Sri Mohd. Yasin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrendra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 03.05.2018 and the orders passed by the appellate authority as well as revising authority dated 16.09.2015 and 23.05.2016. The only ground raised at this stage is that while passing the impugned order of termination, the past record of the service of the petitioner was construed adversely against him. The petitioner was not noticed in advance on the consideration of his record of service. Consequently, the petitioner could not tender his defence to the said materials relied upon while passing the impugned order. A specific ground to this effect was taken in the memo of appeal. The relevant part of the memo of appeal is quoted in extenso in the impugned order. However, no finding in that regard has been returned by the appellate authority. In this wake, the Court comes to the conclusion that the impugned order of termination dated 03.05.2018 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and depicts non application of mind. The error was not redeemed by the appellate authority as well as revising authority in the orders dated 16.09.2015 and 23.05.2016. The impugned orders dated 16.09.2015 and 23.05.2016 are liable to be set aside and are set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority with the following directions: i) The disciplinary authority to issue fresh show cause notice disclosing details of the past records of service of the petitioner which are proposed to be relied upon adversely against him and give him an opportunity to respond to the same. ii) The authority shall thereafter pass a speaking order in respect of the aforesaid issue within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. During the pendency of the proceedings, it shall be open to the respondents to suspend the petitioner immediately after reinstating him upon receipt of a copy of this order and thereafter proceed with the enquiry. All other dues and entitlements of the petitioner shall be determined after the final decision is taken by the disciplinary authority. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. The Court has not adjudicated any other issue on merits and it is left open to the parties to press the same in future proceedings before the competent court. Order Date :- 17.2.2025/Mohini Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad