i y >>- J;" $-15 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % W.P.(C) 6360/2011 SUNIL KUMAR Petitioner Througli: Mr.K.Bhardwaj & Mr.AjaySejwal, Advocates. versus CISF AND ANR. Respondents Through: Mr.Kailash Golani, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR ORDER 01.09.2011 1. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 9.6.2011 which has withdrawn the offer of appointment issued to the petitioner is without any prior Show Cause Notice and that no reasons have been given as to why the appointment offer made to the petitioner was withdrawn. 2. Relevant would it be to state that in the absence of any ^reason given in the orderdated 9.6.2011,petitionerwent to find out the reason and states in the writ petition that the same is the petitioner being an accused, in the past, in an FIR. He has been acquitted therein. Petitioner claims to have given the said information in the verification roll when the letter of appointment W.P.(C)No.6360/2011 1 was issued, in tliat, clainns to have informed the department before letter of offer was issued that he was an accused in FIR No.89/2005 but was acquitted therein. 3. Since the order dated 9.6.2011 suffers from the vice of no Show Cause Notice being issued as also is without any reason, we dispose of the writ petition at the preliminary stage quashing the order dated 9.6.2011. 4. We leave it open to the respondents to proceed as per law, which would mean that a Show Cause Notice alleging the wrong against the petitioner or the reason why letter of offer of appointment was proposed to be withdrawn would be served. Petitioner would be given an opportunity to file a reply. Reply would be considered and a decision would be taken. If decision is against the petitioner, he would be free to avail remedies as per law. 5. No costs. ^ 6. Dasti. PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J W.P.(C)No.6360/2011 ;UNIL GAUR, J SEPTEMBER 01, 2011 rs