HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 8984 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. In compliance of earlier order of this Court, learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions in the matter and placed the same before this Court, which are taken on record. As per instruction, it transpires that petitioner has been straightforward dismissed from service on account of conviction in criminal case without issuing notice in the nature of show cause seeking explanation to form a view whether petitioner is liable to be fired from service on the ground of moral turpitude. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this procedure adopted by respondent is in the teeth of various judgments of this Court as well Supreme Court. He has placed reliance a recent judment of co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Manbodhan v. State of U.P. and 4 Others, Writ A No. 5413 of 2016, decided on 16.12.2024 in which, the Court (Hon' Ajay Bhanot, J.) has relied upon another judgment of coordinate bench of this court (Hon' Neeraj Tiwari, J.) in the case of Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. through Pirncipal Secretary Department of Revenue Lucknow and Others, Writ A No. 4422 of 2015. After relying upon various authorities, the Court in the case of Manbodhan (supra) has held thus: "Upon the aforesaid consideration Neeraj Tiwari, J. held as under: "From the perusal of the impugned order dated 30.08.2014, it is apparently clear that it has been passed only on the ground of conviction without having any discussion or application of mind over the conduct of the petitioner, which is mandatory requirement in light interpretation of Article 311(2)(a) of Constitution of India by the Apex Court as well as by this Court. Now this issue is no res integra. Apex Court from the judgement of Tulsiram Patel(Supra) to many other judgments has considered this issue repeatedly and has held that even after conviction of an employee, while passing the removal or dismissal order, there must have been consideration of conduct of the employee and without that, any order of dismissal is bad." The case is fully covered by the law laid down of Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another Vs. Tulsiram Patel reported at AIR 1985 SCC 1416 as well as of this Court in Vishwanath Vishwakarma Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Awadh Narain Rai, Rajesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vinod Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) (Supra). The judgment discussed in the previous part of the narrative will govern the fate of this case. The judgement of the trial court on which basis the order of dismissal has been passed is in jeopardy before the appellate court. " Applying above principles as discussed in the aforesaid authority, to the facts of this case and in view of admitted position that petitioner was never issued with show cause notice prior to passing of the order impugned dated 2nd May, 2025 may deserve to be remitted to the authority for strict compliance of the Article 311(2) of the Constitution by issuing show cause notice to petitioner offering his explanation so as to form a view that petitioner deserved dismissal from service for being guilty of moral turpitude. In view of above, the order impugned in this petition dated 2nd May, 2023, ananexure 1 to the petition is hereby quashed. The petitioner is directed to treat the order impugned as notice in the nature of show cause to offer explanation to the respondent no. 2 within a period of four weeks from today and upon receiving explanation of the petitioner, respondent no. 2 shall be passing order afresh within a further period of two months. The petitioner shall be in the meanwhile continue with status as he had on the date of passing of the order impugned. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this petition stands allowed. September 16, 2025 Sanjeev WRIA No. 8984 of 2025 2 (Ajit Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad