JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner having been duly interviewed on 19.5.1994 vide Annex. 1 and having been duly selected was given appointment as Camel Rider in the pay-scale of Rs. 750-940/- vide order dated 6.6.1994 (Annex. 2). He was posted at Tehsil-Pokran vide Annex. 3. He had joined as per appointment order, but vide order dated 19.10.1994 (Annex. 4), he was removed from service on the basis of a report of Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer to the fact that uncle of petitioner i.e. Gazi Khan is a history-sheeter as recorded in the Police Station, Mohangarh. It was further stated that his uncle had been found by the custom department to be involved in the smuggling activities and his uncle was arrested and is undergoing the sentence under NDPS Act at Central Jail Jodhpur and because of the reason that petitioner is related to his uncle, who is a bad character, it will not be proper. for the State to keep the petitioner in Government service. On the basis of Annex. 4, the petitioner was relieved on 20.10.1994. It is stated by the petitioner that he cannot be removed from service because of certain objectionable activities of his uncle, who is not staying with the petitioner and has his separate abode. So far as the petitioner is concerned, there. is nothing objectionable to his character. It is stated that the order Annex. 4 cast stigma to the petitioner. 2. The respondents had filed the written statements through Officer Incharge Asstt. Collector (HQ), Jaisalmer and the facts as stated have not been denied. It has been stated in the reply that because of fact that petitioner had no where rebutted the fact that his uncle is not connected with anti-national or anti-social activities and, therefore, the petitioner belongs to family who is anti-social family and being a relative, he has got contacts with his uncle and, therefore, looking into the sensitive area where the petitioner is supposed to work, he has been rightly removed from service. The respondents have also justified the narration of stigma in the impugned order Annex. 4. 3. The writ petition deserves to be allowed because of the reason the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on the count that his uncle happens to be history sheeter. A mate reading of Annex. 4 makes it clear that order of termination does cast stigma on the petitioner. 4. 3. The writ petition deserves to be allowed because of the reason the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer on the count that his uncle happens to be history sheeter. A mate reading of Annex. 4 makes it clear that order of termination does cast stigma on the petitioner. It is also admitted that no show cause notice was ever issued to the petitioner before removing him from service which amounts to punishment. In case the petitioner himself is found lacking in his character or misconducts himself, action can be taken against the petitioner according to law the reasons given by the respondents for removing the petitioner are not germare. The petitioner cannot be punished because of the reason that somebody else in his family is of anti-social character. The impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The respondents can always keep a watchful eye on the activities of petitioner and can even post him at some other suitable place, if there is any such apprehension in the mind of respondents as expressed in written statements. 4. For the reasons given above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Anne dated 19.10.1994 is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits alongwith reinstatement in service.Petition Allowed. *******