Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted in SLP (C) Nos. 10865-10874 of 1998.

2. These appeals are directed against judgments rendered by different Division Benches of the Gujarat High Court holding that the orders of disengagement of the respondents who were working as Home Guards and Home Guards Commandants were without legal sanction. The orders of engagement of the respondents were passed in purported exercise of powers conferred under Section 2 of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 (in short the ‘Act’). Subsequently being of the view that the respondents’ activities were in violation of the guidelines contained in Government Resolution No. HGD/1078/5355/F dated 3.9.1979 of the Home Department, the orders of disengagement were passed. Akshay Amrutlal Thakkar-the respondent in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 1998 filed a writ application challenging the order of disengagement which was dismissed by learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal filed by him was allowed. The respondents in the connected Civil Appeals had filed writ applications which were allowed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court. It was held that the act of the Bombay Home Guards Rules, 1953 (in short the ‘Rules’) did not empower the Government to direct termination of the services of any member of the Home Guard or all the members of the Home Guards as was sought to be done by the impugned decision of the Government on 2nd December, 1995. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja and Anr. v. State of Gujarat (1995(5) SCC 302) for accepting the present respondents’ stand.

3. The Division Bench by the impugned judgment in Civil Appeal No. 2456 of 1998 allowed the earlier decision of the Division Bench and allowed the Appeal, setting aside the learned single judge’s order.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant-State and its functionary question the correctness of the judgments on the ground that the High Court has not taken note of the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgments of the High Court impugned in these appeals.

6. In order to appreciate rival submission a few provisions of the Act and Rules need to be noted; they are Sections 2, 6B(1-A) of the Act, and Rules 2(2), 2(3), 2(6), 9(a), 11 & 12 of the Rules.

“2(1) The State Government shall constitute for each of the areas specified in sub-section (3) of section 1 and for each of the areas notified under the said sub-section (3) a volunteer body called the Home Guards, the members of which shall discharge such functions and duties in relation to protection of persons, the security of the property and the public safety as may be assigned to them in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder.

(1A) In respect of the Saurashtra area and the Vidarbha region, the Home Guards raised or constituted, immediately before the commencement of the Bombay Home Guards (Extension and Amendment) Act, 1958, shall be deemed to be constituted under sub-section (1).

(2) The State Government shall appoint a Commandant of each of the Home Guards constituted under sub-section (1).

(3) The State Government shall also appoint a Commandant General of the Home Guards in whom shall vest the general supervision and control of the Home Guards throughout the State of Gujarat.

6B. (1) The Commandant shall have the authority to suspend, reduce or dismiss or fine, to an amount not exceeding fifty rupees, any member of the Home Guards, under his control, if such member, without reasonable cause, on being called out under section 4 neglects or refuses to obey such order or to discharge his functions and duties as a member of Home Guards or to obey any lawful order or direction given to him for the performance of his functions and duties or is guilty of any breach of discipline or misconduct. The Commandant shall also have the authority to dismiss any member of the Home Guards on the ground of c