JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The appellant has come up in appeal against the judgement and order dated 29.06.2022 passed by Hon’ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1158 of 2022 (S/S), ‘Ramavtar Singh @ Ramavtar V/s State of Uttarakhand & Ors. By the impugned judgement and order the Learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition observing that “since an F.I.R. has been registered against the petitioner, therefore it would not be proper for this Court to interfere at this stage, when the investigation is still proceeding, based on F.I.R. If the F.I.R. results in submission of a final/closure report, then the petitioner may approach the Court again for relief”. 2. In a nutshell the case of the appellant is that the appellant is working on the post of Home Guard Constable 3083 at Home Guard Gramin Company, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, appointed by respondent no.3. On 29.05.2022 when the appellant was going to attend his duties, the real brother of the appellant started quarrel suddenly for some family dispute. The wife of the brother of the appellant lodged a false F.I.R. by alleging fictitious and concocted grounds. The F.I.R. was registered as F.I.R. No. 196 of 2022 on 31.05.2022 under section 323, 380 and 452 IPC at P.S. - I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar. On 13.06.2022, when the appellant went to the office of respondent no.3 and gave all the information. Even on hearing the clarification the appellant was denied to join the duty and all of sudden a letter no. D.C.-37/H.G./2022-23/756 dated 13.06.2022. stating therein that the clarification extended by you is not satisfactory. There is an F.I.R lodged against you and you have not informed about the same to your higher officials. This act of yours has spoiled the image of Home Guard Department which is a sign of gross indiscipline and hence your duty/parade is stopped with immediate effect since further orders. 3. Challenging the impugned letter dated 13.06.2022, the petitioner filed a writ petition, Writ Petition 1158 of 2022 (S/S)which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 29.06.2022. 4. This act of yours has spoiled the image of Home Guard Department which is a sign of gross indiscipline and hence your duty/parade is stopped with immediate effect since further orders. 3. Challenging the impugned letter dated 13.06.2022, the petitioner filed a writ petition, Writ Petition 1158 of 2022 (S/S)which was dismissed vide judgement and order dated 29.06.2022. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgement in the case of Ram Chander v. State of Haryana (2012 SCC Online P&H 11961) where the facts before the Hon’ble Court were that the petitioner was appointed on the post of skilled worker in the office of Heat Treatment Centre, Faridabad on ad hoc basis. In the year 2004 the petitioner’s name figured in F.I.R. No. 200/1984, Police Station Narela. A trial was held wherein the petitioner was acquitted by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Delhi vide judgement dated 03.06.1989. against the said judgement of acquittal. The State (Delhi Administration) preferred an appeal before the High Court which vide judgement dated 16.04.2007 convicted the petitioner under section 324,324 read with section 34 as also section 452 of IPC. Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 01.10.1984 and on his acquittal by the Trial Court, he was reinstated into service on 09.08.1996. however, on his conviction by the Delhi High Court, petitioner was served a show cause notice dated 01.01.2010 as to why his service be not terminated on his conviction, to which the petitioner responded. Director of Industries and Commerce, Haryana terminated the services of the petitioner vide order dated 11.02.2010 on the basis of his conviction. It is against this order that petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Court primarily basing its reliance upon the instruction dated 26.03.1975 according to which section 323 and 324 and also section 452 IPC are not stated to be offences involving moral turpitude. The Writ Petition was allowed and the impugned order whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated was set aside. 5. In the present case, the respondent department has also admitted in the short counter reply that section 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC does not come under the category of ‘Moral Turpitude’ as per the Rules applicable to the Home Guards. 5. In the present case, the respondent department has also admitted in the short counter reply that section 323, 452, 504 and 506 IPC does not come under the category of ‘Moral Turpitude’ as per the Rules applicable to the Home Guards. Therefore, the suspension of the appellant merely on the basis of FIR is not sustainable in the eyes of law, especially when no disciplinary proceeding has yet been initiated against the appellant by the department. 6. This Court is of the opinion that mere involvement and accusation in an FIR which has been lodged in a private dispute by the appellant’s brother’s wife would not render the appellant ineligible for doing his duty to the post on which he was working as it does not involve moral turpitude and accusation in an FIR is a matter of trial. 7. Therefore, this court directs the respondent to reinstate the appellant on his services with immediate effect without being influenced or affected by the order of suspension. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby, allowed. 9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.