Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore, J.;- By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders dated 16.7.2007 and 30.4.2008 passed by the Deputy Commandant General Home Guards, Heard Quarter Lucknow. In brief the facts giving rise to this petition are as under:- The petitioner is a Home Guard. During the course of her assignment she was involved in a criminal case vide case Crime No. 153/2000, under Sections 498-A, 304-B IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Aminabad, District Lucknow, in which she was convicted on 28.3.2007. Initially she was suspended on her conviction and thereafter her services were terminated by the impugned order. By means of this petition, it is prayed that the said order be quashed because the impugned orders are in contravention of Article 311 of the Constitution of India because no enquiry, whatsoever, has been conducted by the opposite parties against the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing, her services have been terminated. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that it is the confidence of the employer on his employee, on the basis of which an employee can be terminated or retained in service. Once the confidence of the employer is gone for sufficient reasons than natural consequence would be to terminate his services. He has placed reliance on the pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao ( Manu/SC/1368/2011) The admitted fact, situation in this case is that the petitioner was a Home Guard and she was convicted for the offence under Sections 306/498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. The provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India are relevant for this purpose which reads as under:- "311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State- ( 1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by a authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed. 2.No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: [Provided further that this clause shall not apply-] ( a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or ( b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry. ( 3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause ( 2 ), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.]" The provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India applies to a person who is a member of Civil Service of Union or All India Service or a Civil Service on a State or holds a civil post. There is an explanation attached to Section 10 of the U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 which says that the Home Guard shall not be deemed to be a "holder of a civil post merely by reason of his enrollment as Home Guard". Therefore, the aforementioned explanation makes it clear that the Home Guard is not a civil servant and therefore, Article 311 of Constitution of India shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner. In the case of Riyasat Ali and others Vs. Therefore, the aforementioned explanation makes it clear that the Home Guard is not a civil servant and therefore, Article 311 of Constitution of India shall not be attracted in the case of the petitioner. In the case of Riyasat Ali and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003( 53) AIR 257 which has been followed in the case of Suraj Prasad Tewari Vs. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur and others, ( 2005)1 UPLBEC 404; a Division Bench of this Court has held that a Home Guard may have incidence of 'Civil Service' but it cannot be treated as such because of explanation attached to section 10 of the U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 and therefore, the provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India is not attracted. A perusal of U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 makes it clear that the Home Guard is not a civil post and they are not entitled to salary but as they are entitled to honorarium/ allowances whenever called for duties. Apart from it Section 11( 2) says that initial period for which a Home Guard may be required to serve shall be three years from the date of his enrollment. This period may be extended with his consent accorded in the prescribed manner. The above mentioned provision also makes it clear that the engagement of a Home Guard on the said post is not of a permanent nature. In the latest case of M.G. Vittal Rao ( supra) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that loss of confidence can not be subjective but there must be objective facts which would lead to a definite inference of apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of the employee and which must be alleged and proved. In the case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee. It is an admitted fact that petitioner was working as Home Guard and Home Guard does not fall within the definition of Civil Servant, therefore, there is no question of violation of provision of Art. 311 of the Constitutions of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to the notice of this Court any law whereby the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Riyast Ali ( supra) has been overruled. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not bring to the notice of this Court any law whereby the pronouncement of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Riyast Ali ( supra) has been overruled. Therefore, the conviction for an offence under Section 306, 498-A IPC is definitely a reason for loss of confidence for the employer against the employee to be continued in a force which work as an auxiliary to the police force. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench of this Court in the case Vijay Shankar Tewari Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4594 of 1991, decided on September 6, 1995. But the petitioner is not entitled for any benefit of that Case because the petitioner in that case was a member of U.P. Police Force and rules governing Police Force are different. Therefore, in view of the aforementioned settled legal postilion, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed.