HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1869 (S/S) of 2007 Jasbeer Singh S/o Sri Pahal Singh, R/o village Abdul Raheempur, P.S. Khanpur, District Haridwar. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Home Affairs, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 2. Inspector General of Police, (P.A.C.), Uttarakhand, Dehradun, 3. Commandant/Sena Nayak, 31st Vahini, P.A.C. (Provincial Armed Constabulary), Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, 4. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Haridwar. -------- Respondents Sri K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J. Heard Sri K.S. Bora, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the State/ respondents. The parties are agreed to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage itself. The petitioner has challenged the notice dated 31st August 2007 issued by the Commandant 31st Battalion, P.A.C., Rudrapur, district Udham Singh Nagar (annexure no. 2) wherein it is stated that from the date of receipt of the notice, petitioner’s service shall be deemed to have been terminated in view of the fact that he has given wrong information in the affidavit submitted by him at the time of his recruitment, while at that time a case was pending against the petitioner. Again on 3rd September 2007, the Commandant has passed order that since a notice has already been served upon the petitioner, his services have been terminated w.e.f. 01.09.2007. Against these two orders, the petitioner has filed appeal before the Inspector General of Police, P.A.C. Uttarakhand, Dehradun who has rejected the same on 22nd November 2007. The petitioner has challenged these two orders on the ground that his services have been terminated only on the basis of a notice which was served upon him on 1st September 2007, though the order was passed on 3rd September 2007, thus the services of the petitioner have been terminated with back effect i.e. from 1st November 2007. Again the petitioner has submitted that in the Criminal case, in which the petitioner was falsely implicated, he has been acquitted from the charges on 04.05.2006. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner has efficacious remedy by way of filing revision before the Revisional Authority and he did not avail the same. In these circumstances, the petitioner is directed to file revision before the Revisional Authority. In case, the petitioners avails this opportunity, the Revisional Authority shall consider the case of the petitioner specially on two grounds whether the termination order which was passed on 3rd September 2007 has any retrospective effect, as has been passed in case of the petitioner and further since, the petitioner has already been acquitted from the charges levelled against him in that case whether the petitioner is entitled to get any relief or not? The revision may be decided in accordance with the above observations and in accordance with law as early as possible, at any rate, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order alongwith the memo of appeal. With these directions, with petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.) January 2, 2008: NCM: