AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jagmohan Bansal, J
The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of communication dated 16.10.2020 whereby representation of the petitioner was rejected.
On 24.11.2020, the following order was passed:-
“It is inter alia argued that order dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure P-4) amounts to termination of services as in response to legal notice dated 21.09.2020 the reply states that the petitioner was guilty of conniving with his Platoon Commander for drawing salary for a period prior to his appointment and also of not possessing the requisite educational qualification. Rule 25 of the Haryana Home Guards Rules, 1980 prescribes that an order of dismissal can be passed only after conduct of proper proceedings by the District Commandant. Neither proper proceedings have been conducted nor the order of termination has been passed by the competent authority. Notice of motion for 11.02.2021.
Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 4 and waives service.
Respondent No. 5 be served in the ordinary manner.”
Learned State counsel submits that instant petition would be treated as representation of the petitioner and a speaking order after granting opportunity of hearing would be passed. The order would be passed within three months from today.
In the wake of statement of learned State counsel, the instant petition stands disposed of.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.