HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 13269 of 2020 Court No. - 34 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Bheshaj Puri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel, who appears for State-respondents. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was engaged as Homeguard in the year 2014 under the provisions of Section 7(2) of the U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 in a Company No. 27, Ram Nagar, Bareilly, however, a first information report stood lodged on 31.12.2017 by one Bablu against the accused who were 5 in number under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC though the name of the writ petitioner did not find as an accused thereafter the name of the writ petitioner came to be surfaced during the stage of further investigation and the writ petitioner was confined in jail so the writ petitioner preferred Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 48054 of 2018 in which the writ petitioner was enlarged on bail on 18.12.2018, however, without there being any basis, the writ petitioner's appointment has been cancelled on 18.01.2019 by District Commandant Homeguard, Bareilly. 3. Questioning the said order, the writ petitioner has been filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner has been falsely implicated in the said criminal case as he was not marked as an accused in the first information report but during further investigation, his name came to be surfaced that cannot be ground for cancellation of the appointment of the writ petitioner as the trial may take several years, however, the writ petitioner be engaged in service subject to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashok Kumar, Bheshaj Puri Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Omkar Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U P And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) the fate and the outcome of the trial. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that once the trial against the writ petitioner is pending and the writ petitioner is facing the same that too of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC then it was justifiable for the respondents to have passed the order cancelling the appointment, particularly, when a person whose antecedents are under cloud cannot be permitted to work in a disciplined post. He, however, submits that it is always open for the writ petitioner to again approach for revocation of the cancellation of the appointment at the stage when he stands acquitted and a suitable position taken in that regard. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 7. Might be, the writ petitioner was not named as an accused in the first information report, however, the question would be once the name of the writ petitioner stood surfaced in further investigation and he was arrested and a criminal trial instituted against him and the writ petitioner facing the trial then obviously, it cannot be said that the respondents were in error in cancelling the appointment. Thus, interference is declined. However, it is open for the writ petitioner post acquittal and from the criminal proceedings to approach the authorities for revocation of the cancellation order. 8. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed off. October 8, 2025 A. Prajapati WRIA No. 13269 of 2020 2 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad