Point of Law: As per Scheme of Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963, it was imperative upon respondents to make a note of enquiry in writing, after giving proper opportunity of hearing.

JUDGMENT :

1. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate order, writ, direction:-

1. That the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 (Anx.P/3) denying the petitioner from reinstatement in service on the post of Border Home Guard Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential relief.

2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Boarder Home Guard Bikaner and be allotted his original Member Belt No. 212 with the consequential relief.

3. That the impugned enquiry conducted by the respondents in pursuant to letter No. 3154 dated 16.02.2018 and same was sent to the respondent no. 3 vide letter No. 849 dated 18.03.18 may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential relief.

4. That without prejudice to hereinabove if during the pendency of the writ petition if the post are being filled up then in such event the respondents may be directed to create one supernumerary post of Border Home Guard Bikaner for the petitioner in OBC Category. 5.Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

6. Any other writ, order or direction which your lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the favor of petitioner”.

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner, after successfully completing the training for a period of 45 days from 01.12.2016 to 14.01.2017 at Ghadsana, was appointed vide order dated 01.02.2017 as Border Home Guard. The petitioner was however, discharged from service vide order dated 14.02.2017 in pursuance of the letter dated 02.02.2017; the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a writ petition, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5483/2017, which, vide order dated 15.01.2018 passed by this Court, was allowed, while quashing and setting aside the discharge order dated 14.02.2017, with liberty to the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry and pass orders afresh within three months thereafter, strictly in accordance with law.

2.1. Thereafter, the respondents conducted a fresh enquiry in pursuant of Letter No.3154 dated 16.02.2018 and the same was sent to the respondent no.3 vide Letter No. 849 dated 18.03.2018, whereupon the respondents vide impugned order dated 09.04.2018 again discharged the petitioner from service.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not supplied the copies of statements of witnesses, as also did not give the opportunity of cross-examination of the witnesses to the petitioner, and therefore, the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner, thereby violated the principles of natural justice.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 18.04.2018 before the respondents seeking his reinstatement into service, but the respondents have not considered the same. He also submitted that the respondents have not appointed an enquiry officer holding a rank higher than the Commandant.

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rajendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4176 of 2020) decided on 14.09.2022.

5. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that during the training period, the petitioner acted in an indisciplined manner, which was also was recorded in Visit Book of E-Company, Garsana by the Battalion Commandant on 19.12.2016 and 14.01.2017(Annexure-R-1).

6. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents issued instructions to