The court directed the respondent authority to decide on the petitioner's representation regarding his suspension as a Home Guard, balancing the existence of a statutory appeal and delay in filing the petition against the administrative inaction on the representation.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Mr. Sudhanshu A. Jha, learned advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Forum Bimal Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondents.

2. Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP waives service of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter was taken up for hearing.

3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash and set-aside the suspension order dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure G) qua the petitioner:

(C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and further be pleased to direct the respondents to pay the regular salary and arrears of salary to the petitioner from the month of November 2019 to till date;

(F) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the suspension order dated 14.11.2019 passed by the respondent no.2;

(G) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant any other and further reliefs, as the nature and circumstances of the present case may require and also award cost of this petition.

SHORT FACTS:

4. The petitioner was mainly aggrieved by his order of suspension dated 07.12.2019 issued by respondent No. 3 herein mainly on the ground that he could not have been suspended as prior to his suspension, petitioner was suspended but reinstated by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 25.10.2019. It is a case of the petitioner that since he was facing FIR under the Gujarat Gambling Act, he was initially suspended on 13.06.2019. The said FIR was culminated into an order of penalty by the competent Court, passed on 14.09.2019. Accordingly, the aforesaid suspension was withdrawn by the respondent No.3 vide its aforesaid order dated 25.10.2019.

4.1. The Office of the Director General, Civil Defence, Home Guard, Gujarat State vide its circular dated 14.11.2019 directed the District Commandant to verify the details of pending criminal cases faced by the suspended Home Guards and upon final conclusion of such cases by the Court; after reviewing the decision of the Court, an appropriate order can be passed by the Commandant. It was observed that under Gujarat Home Guards Act, 1947 (herein after referred as “the Act,1947”), there is no provision to reinstate the service of Home Guards who is facing police complaint and, in such cases, the procedure envisaged in Secction 6B of the Act, 1947 read with its rules, may be followed.

4.2. Thus, in view of the said circular dated 14.11.2019, the impugned order dated 07.12.2019 was passed, and accordingly, the petitioner is again suspended. The petitioner appears to have made a representation to revoke his suspension and as such the respondent No. 3 appears to have communicated vide its letter dated 06.01.2020 to the Office of Commandant, Home Guard, Surat city to review the suspension, but till date, no decision as such is taken in this regard.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:

5. Mr. Jha, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that once the petitioner was reinstated in service as a Home Guard on 25.10.2019, there was no reason for the respondent to again suspend him from service vide its impugned order dated 07.12.2019. He has