JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Shailesh Verma and Shri M.M Sahai, Advocates for the petitioners and R.P. Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Vibhav Dutt, Standing Counsel, Mohd. Naushad Sidduqui, Standing Counsel, Shri Virendra Kumar Pal, Standing Counsel, Shri Ramesh Pundir, Standing Counsel, Shri Santosh Kumar, Standing Counsel and Shri Jitendra Kumar Singh, Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The issue raised in all the writ petitions are being decided by mean of this common judgment for the sake of convenience, the facts as mentioned in the case of Dheer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ -A No.8869 of 2021 are being taken up. Individual cases will be dealt separately.

3. The present petition has been filed alleging that the petitioner was enrolled as a Home Guard in the year 1998 under Section 7 of the U. P. Home Guards Adhiniyam,1963 and in terms of mandate of section 8 of the Act was called upon to discharge of his duties, he was placed in various places in District Amroha, he was being paid honorarium as provided under the U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963.

4. Challenge in the present case is to the order dated 13.02.2019, whereby the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with mainly on the ground that the petitioners were involved in forming a Workers' Association. Name of four of the petitioners is mentioned in the order dated 13.02.2019, it was further mentioned that the said Act of forming an Association was not acceptable and the Commandant General, Home Guard Headquarters vide letters dated 02.09.2013 and 31.07.2013 had directed for dismissing the Association. It is further revealed that the news of formation of an Association by the petitioners was published in the Newspaper "Hindustan" and based on the said news the petitioners were served with a show cause notice dated 04.01.2019, to comply with the Principle of Natural Justice. In the impugned order, it is recorded that the petitioners did not file a reply and the said act of not filing the reply was itself recorded as an act of indiscipline. It further records that the petitioners had themselves admitted that they were not the member of the Association known as U.P. Home Guard Avaitnik Adhikari Avam Karmachari Association. It is recorded that the reply submitted by the petitioners was not considered to be appropriate and which established that the petitioners had associated themselves with the Association, which was an act of indiscipline. It is further recorded that the petitioners had earlier given an affidavit in September, 2011 swearing not to even take the name of the Association in future and had also apologized for the facts of associating with the Association and had prayed for mercy and had promised that they will not repeat the mistake again and despite the said affidavit, became a governing Member of the said Association, which is contrary to their common affidavit given earlier. It also records that Commandant General vide his letter dated 31.07.2017 had issued directions for dismissal of such employees and in pursuance to the said directions the services of the petitioners were dismissed. The said order was challenged before this Court.

5. Sri Shailesh Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners argues that the order impugned is bad on following grounds:-

The said order is bad as no procedure as prescribed under the U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963, has been followed prior to passing of the said order. He argues that the post of the petitioners was a Civil Post and thus, it was incumbent upon the respondents to have complied with the mandate of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. He further argues that the order is bad as the same has been passed under directives from the Commandant General and thus there is no application of mind of the authority passing the said. He further argues that the order is clearly against the rights of the petitioners enshrined under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constituti