SHAMIM KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                           WRIT - A No. - 7301 of 2026

Shamim Khan
                                                                      .....Petitioner(s)
                                          Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                         :   Kailash Prakash Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)                         :   C.S.C.

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
                                                                       WRIA No. 7301 of 2026
                                     2


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
                                                                  3


                                        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

                                                                                     (Prakash Padia,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
PRAKASH PADIA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad