ORDER

1. By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 14.5.2019 by which respondent No.2/Director General of Home Guards has dismissed the representation preferred by him for taking him back in service. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 9.8.2004 passed by the respondents whereby he had been terminated from services.

2. As per the petitioner, he was initially appointed on the post of Constable [Sainik] in the Home Guard Department on 1.10.1988. On 15.4.2004 he was arrested in a criminal case after which his services were terminated on the ground that he was absent in election duty. In the criminal case registered against him, the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Indore convicted him which order was affirmed by the Appellate Court by order dated 16.4.2004. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred Criminal Revision before this Court which was allowed by order dated 2.8.2006 and his order of jail sentence passed under section 325 of the IPC was set aside. It was stated therein that conviction of the petitioner will not be treated to be a disqualification as provided under section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for his services.

3. After the order passed in the criminal case, the petitioner filed applications before the respondents on 30.8.2006 and 5.1.2009 for taking him back in services but no action thereupon was taken and he did not receive any response. Petitioner hence preferred W.P. No.3675 of 2008 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 5.12.2008 with a direction to the petitioner to submit a fresh representation and the respondents were directed to pass a detailed and speaking order within six months. Thereafter, the Divisional Commandant, Home Guard, Indore recommended and forwarded the case of the petitioner to Director General, Home Guard, Jabalpur vide letter dated 24.12.2009 but thereafter no action was taken. Petitioner hence again preferred W.P. No.2189 of 2012(S) before this Court in which reply was filed by the respondents along with which they filed a copy of order dated 9.8.2004 by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated. By order dated 9.3.2019 the petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the law laid down by this Court in R.P. Dwivedi v. SECL 2011(4) MPLT 483. Thereafter, by order dated 14.5.2019, the representation made by the petitioner in light of the aforesaid order has been rejected by the respondents by observing that fifteen years have already elapsed since the time when the petitioner was relieved from services hence now he cannot be taken back.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that termination order of the petitioner as well as rejection of his representation made pursuant to order passed by this Court is illegal. The impugned order has been passed without complying with the order of this Court only on the ground of delay which was already in the knowledge of this Court at the time of passing of its order in the Writ Petition. The first Writ Petition was preferred by the petitioner in the year 2008 and the second one in February, 2012. The matter was pending before this Court hence there was no delay on part of the petitioner. The services of the petitioner were terminated on the ground of absence from election duty without considering the fact that he was behind bars during that period hence was unable to join duty. The petitioner had given reasonable explanation about his absence which was not willful but the same has been turned down without duly appreciating the same. The termination order has been passed without following the process of law, without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without conducting regular enquiry which hence deserves to be quashed. Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the ape