HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 7301 of 2026 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondents- State. 2. The services of the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 28.02.2014, which was challenged by him by filing a petition being Writ A No.7224 of 2024, which was allowed vide judgement and order dated 08.04.2025. The order dated 08.04.2025 reads as follows :- "Heard Sri Chandra Bhushan Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 28th February, 2014 terminating the services of the petitioner merely on the basis of conviction in a criminal case being Sessions Trial No.- 01 of 2002 arising out of chargesheet being RC No.- 18(S)/93 under Section 120B, 302, 364 and 218 of the erstwhile Indian Panel Code as well as order dated 24th May, 2014 passed by the respondent No.- 4. The submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that order impugned has come to be passed without giving any notice much less a show cause notice to the petitioner. It is submitted that even though petitioner's conviction has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Appeal No.- 1575 of 2012 but upon appeal being preferred being Criminal Appeal No.- 881-882 of 2021 before the Supreme Court, he has been enlarged on bail vide order dated 21st March, 2023. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the matter of dismissal from service even in cases of conviction in a criminal trail, the authorities are required to take an action in Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kailash Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Shamim Khan .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) tune with the principles enshrined under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Madho Saran Shukla v. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ ? A No.- 359 of 2021 decided on 30th October, 2023 and also another judgment of a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vishwanath Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and others being Writ ? A No.- 4422 of 2015 decided on 18th September, 2023. It is also argued that another co-accused namely Dhirendra Singh Yadav has filed a writ petition being Writ ? A No.- 18987 of 2023, Dhirendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others decided on 27th February, 2025, in which order of dismissal from service stood set aside following the judgment of Vishwanath Vishwakarma (supra) in matter of Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents could not dispute that no notice much less a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner prior to passing the order impugned and pleads that the matter can be remitted to the authority to take an appropriate decision afresh in the matter by following the procedure prescribed for in the light of the judgment of this Court in Madho Saran Shukla (supra). In view of the above, petition succeeds and is allowed. The order of dismissing the petitioner from service dated 28th February, 2014 as well as order dated 24th May, 2014 is hereby quashed. Liberty rests with the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law." 3. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the aforesaid an order was passed by the respondent no.2-Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun on 28.06.2023 by which direction was given for payment of pension to the petitioner. It is further argued that inspite of the aforesaid till date no decision has been taken on the same. 4. On the other hand it is stated by learned Standing Counsel that respondent no.2 will take a decision in the matter expeditiously. 5. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. 6. Taking into consideration the nature of relief sought by the petitioner and without dwelling upon the merit of the matter, the petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the representation preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of WRIA No. 7301 of 2026 2 this order. 7. Since the writ petition has been decided on an exparte version without seeking any response from the respondents, thus the passing of the order today may not be construed to an expression that this Court has gone into the merits of the matter and the second respondent shall accord independent consideration strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of law holding the field. May 14, 2026 Pramod Tripathi WRIA No. 7301 of 2026 3 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRAKASH PADIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad