- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. By means of this peti tion, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order, dated 16-6-1981, where by the petitioner has been removed from the post of Company Commander.
(2.) IT has been stated that it was in the year 1963 that the petitioner was appointed as Home-Guard. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Commandant. On 23-8-1963, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Battalian Quarter Master Ser-gent and as Assistant Company Com mander on 8-8-1996. IT was on 12-12-1974 that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Company Commander City. While he was holding the post of Company Com mander, the impugned order, dated 16-8-1981 removing him from service was passed in wholly arbitrarily manner and without affording him an opportunity of being heard. The petitioner, therefore, filed the present petition challenging the validity of the said order. On behalf of the respondents a counter-affidavit has been filed in which the facts stated in the writ petition have been denied. It has further been stated that the inquiry was conducted against the petitioner, but since his work and conduct was not found satisfactory, therefore, he was removed from service. It has also been stated that the petitioner was not holding the civil post, therefore, it was not neces sary to frame the charge sheet and afford him in opportunity of hearing as provided under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner was holding a civil post and, therefore, provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India were fully attracted in the present case. He urged that admittedly in the present case neither any charge sheet was framed nor served upon the petitioner nor the discipli nary proceedings were conducted and the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing in any form that the order of removal has been passed in wholly arbitrari ly and the said order was, therefore, liable to be quashed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission that the post held by the petitioner was a civil post referred to and relied upon the decision in Vibhuti Narain Singh v. State of U. P. and others, 1986 UPLBEC 1130. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel reiterated the stand taken in the counter-affidavit and that in the present case Article 311 of the Constitution of India was not attracted.;