SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Chh) 449

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, J.
Chitrasen Kulmitra S/o Shri Ram Kumar Kulmitra - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 94 of 2014, WPS No. 7089 of 2017
Decided on : 28-02-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri R.K. Gupta, Additional A.G.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary actions against Home Guards must comply with the statutory requirements, and the fundamental rights of the individuals must be upheld.

Headnote:

Home Guards - Termination of Services - C.G. Home Guards Act, 1947 - Rule 12(6) - The court considered the termination of the petitioners' services as Home Guards and the legality of the dismissal orders in light of the C.G. Home Guards Act, 1947 and the Rules, 1947. The court analyzed the provisions of Rule 11 regarding offenses against the force and the limitations of disciplinary actions under Rule 12(6). The court found that the dismissal orders were illegal as they did not comply with the statutory requirements and violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, who were Home Guards, were terminated without conducting any inquiry or referring the matter to the State, based on the formation of an association to support the deceased Home Guards' families.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dismissal orders were illegal and violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners as they did not comply with the statutory requirements.

Issues: The main issue was whether the services of the petitioners as Home Guards could be terminated without following the statutory procedures and whether the formation of the association by the petitioners was a valid ground for dismissal.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dismissal orders were illegal as they did not comply with the statutory requirements and violated the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The court also emphasized that the formation of the association by the petitioners was within their rights and did not constitute a valid ground for dismissal.

Final Decision: Both the petitions were allowed, and the dismissal orders were quashed. The petitioners were directed to be reinstated in the service with all back wages.

ORDER :

Heard.

1. Since facts & issue involved in both the cases is similar, they are being considered and decided together by this common order.

2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are Home Guards, being aggrieved by the dismissal orders dated 15/04/2011 Annexure P/7 (passed in respect of six petitioners in WPS No.94 of 2014) & Annexure P/8 (passed in respect of petitioner in WPS No.7089 of 2017).

3. According to the petitioners, who were working as Home Guards they were initially suspended by order dated 26/03/2011 & 27/02/2011, respectively, and show-cause notice was issued to them on 31/03/2011 Annexure P/5 & P/6, respectively. The reply was filed by the petitioners and the respondents not being satisfied with the reply terminated the services of the petitioners on 15/04/2011 without conducting any enquiry or referring the matter to the State.

4. The short question therefore falls for consideration is as to whether the services of the petitioners as Home Guard can be dispensed with by termination simplicitor.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' services were terminated for the reason that they have formed an association namely; Home Guard Sainik Avm Parivar Kalyan Sangh with an object to provide support to the widow of the deceased Home Guard, their Children and to make them self-dependent so that they can add value to the nation. He would further submit that it was not to inculcate indiscipline in the Home Guards but the higher officers having not been satisfied with the same, issued show-cause notice and the reply though was filed the services of petitioners were terminated simplicitor without any inquiry. He would further submit that the services of the Home Guard are governed by the C.G. Home Guards Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947) and the rules framed thereunder namely; the Chhattisgarh (Central Provinces and Berar) Home Guards Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1947') and Rule 12 (6) of the Rules, 1947 purports that punishment other than reprimand, confinement to barracks or suspension cannot be imposed by the Senani or the Pradhan Senani unless it is referred to the provincial government. He placed his reliance in the case of Davinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others {(2010) 13 SCC 88} and would submit that in such situation the termination of the petitioners under the circumstances since it is the violative of the fundamental rights, they are required to be reinstated.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents State would submit that the work of the Home Guard is for a specific purpose which needs discipline and if certain congregation of the like nature to form a society is made in the Home Guards it will destroy the discipline in force and it being the offence against the force, after giving show-cause notice and the reply having not been satisfactory, their services were terminated which is in duly compliance of the Act & Rules, 1947.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

8. The initial show-cause which is on record dated 31/03/2011 reads as under:-

**fo"k; %& ftyk lsukuh dk izLrko&vuq'kklughurk gsrq lsokeqfDrA

&&@@&&

ftyk lsukuh uxjlsuk fcykliqj ds Kkiu Øekad@523@izf'k-@2011 fnukad 31-03-2011 }kjk vuq'kklughurk gsrq lsokeqfDr dk izLrko izkIr gqvk gSA izkIr tkudkjh vuqlkj ik;k x;k fd vki yksxks ds }kjk gksexkMZ ifjokj dY;k.k la?k dk xBu dj ftyk ,oa laHkkx ds uxj lSfudksa dks la?k dk lnL; cukus QkeZ dk forj.k dj uxj lSfudksa esa vuq'kklughurk QSykus dk dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gSA vki yksxks ds }kjk foHkkx izeq[k dh vkns'kksa dh vUns[kh dj voS/kkfud :i ls lfefr dk iath;u djk;k x;k gSA bl d`R; ds fy;s ftyk lsukuh uxj lsuk fcykliqj }kjk vkidks fuyacu fd;k x;k gSA

vr% bl vuq'kklughurk iwoZd dk;Zokgh foHkkx izeq[k ds vkns'kks dh voKk] lSfudksa esa xqVckth QSykus rFkk gksexkMZ laLFkk dks uhps fn[kkus fd;s x;s d`R;ksa ds fy;s gksexkMZ fu;e 11¼1½¼[k½¼x½ vUns[kh dh vogsyuk ,oa

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top