HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 847 of 2025 (S/S) Chander Singh ….......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ……....... Respondents Present : Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Sharma, Standing Counsel for the Union of India/respondent nos.1 to 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks reinstatement of his services as Sepoy/GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”). 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was recruited as Sepoy in CRPF in the year 2005. In the year 2014, an FIR No.9 of 2014, under Sections 498-A/34, 304-B/34, 302/34 IPC has been lodged against him at Police Station Satpuli, District Pauri Garhwal. The petitioner was arrested in the matter and subsequently, he was suspended by an order dated 26.09.2014. Based on the FIR, a Sessions Trial No.03 of 2015, State vs. Chandra Singh and others, was instituted in the court of the District and Sessions Judge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal, which was decided on 25.10.2016 and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred against it, which was also dismissed and according to the petitioner, the SLP was also dismissed on 11.01.2018. In the meanwhile, the services of the petitioner were terminated on 2 18.04.2017. Now, the petitioner seeks that he may be reinstated in the service. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner could not prefer an appeal against the order dated 18.04.2017 terminating his services because the petitioner was in prison. Therefore, now he may be reinstated. 5. The petitioner was terminated from the services on 18.04.2017. It is almost after 08 years, instant petition has been filed. The petitioner has not preferred an appeal against the order terminating his service. The petitioner is admittedly, a convict. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no reason to interfere in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 6. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.06.2025 Sanjay