2026:UHC:2035 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/661/2023 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Mohd. Shafy, Advocate for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Shushil Vashistha, Standing Counsel, for the State. (2) Petitioner was engaged as Sevak in Dargah Piran Kaliyar in 2011. His engagement has been discontinued vide order dated 14.4.2023, issued by Manager, Dargah Piran Kaliyar. The reason assigned for discontinuing petitioner’s engagement is that an FIR under Section 323, 325, 354, 504 and 506 IPC was lodged against him, in which charge-sheet has also been filed in the criminal court. (3) Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that lodging of FIR or filing of charge-sheet cannot in itself be a sufficient ground for terminating services of an employee. He submits that petitioner’s guilt is not proved before the Trial Court and there is presumption of innocence in criminal law, therefore, merely because FIR is registered will not be sufficient ground for terminating petitioner’s services. He further submits that Manager, Dargah Piran Kaliyar is not competent for terminating services of petitioner and District Magistrate alone is competent for the purpose, in view of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in WPPIL No. 87 of 2011. He further submits that petitioner was not given any notice or opportunity of hearing and he was terminated from service based on a complaint. (4) Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Dargah Piran 2026:UHC:2035 Kaliyar, submits that Joint Magistrate submitted a report and based on the said report, petitioner’s engagement was discontinued. He further submits that Collector had directed the Manager to discontinue petitioner’s engagement and Manager has simply complied with the order passed by the Collector. (5) Law is well settled than an order, which entails civil consequences to a person, can only be passed after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing. In the present case, petitioner’s engagement was discontinued but without affording him any opportunity of hearing. On this short point alone, writ petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. Impugned order dated 14.4.2023 is hereby quashed. However, competent authority shall be at liberty to pass fresh order against the petitioner, as per law, but only after affording him reasonable opportunity of hearing. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 23.3.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e6 1af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB5 88052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.23 17:53:00 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2035