IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1069 of 2009 (S/S) Brijmohan Kumar S/o Anoop Singh … Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder for the respondents. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Heard Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the respondents. According to petitioner he was recruited in Civil Police and was posted at P.S. Dalanwala, Dehradun. One Adharshveer lodged a first information report dated 4-1-2009 against two unknown constables at P.S. Patelnagar, Dehradun as case crime No. 12/2009 U/S 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act stating therein that two constables have taken bribe of Rs. 3000/- from him when he was staying with a girl at his room. Thereafter S.S.P. Dehradun terminated the services of the petitioner vide impugned termination order dated 6.1.2009, without conducting any inquiry. Against his termination he preferred an appeal before I.G. Police Garhwal Region, Dehradun, who dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition. The respondent/State filed counter affidavit and alleged that the services of the petitioner were temporary in nature and his termination has been made by invoking the provision of U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that similar controversy has been resolved by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1174 of 2008(S/S), Deepak Saklani Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. The case at hand is on same footing, therefore, applying the ratio of above cited case, this writ petition may also be decided finally. 2 The learned Brief Holder has fairly conceded that the controversy in the case at hand is similar to that of above cited case and this writ petition may be decided in terms of the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. Therefore, applying the ratio of judgment passed by learned Single Judge in above cited case of W.P. No. 1174 of 2008 (S/S), this writ petition is also disposed of in same terms. The impugned orders dated 6.1.2009 and 2.9.2009 passed by respondent Nos. 4 and 3 respectively, contained in Annexure Nos. 2 and 4 are hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. Learned Brief Holder also contended that criminal case is going on against the petitioner pertaining to the case crime. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of the case, the respondents/authorities would be at liberty to proceed further in the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and observing the compliance of relevant rules. Dated: 18-11-2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB