[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2023 Jawaharlal S/o Late Ved Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Kumar, Resident Of Member No. 212, Boarder Home Guard, Bikaner 12 Kyd, Khajuwala, District- Bikaner Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

2. The Commissioner, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.

3. The Director General, Home Defence, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The Deputy General Commandant, Home Defence, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shankar Singh Rajpurohit.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

18/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5955/2018 (Jawaharlal V/s State of Raj. & Ors.); whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in pursuance of the directions issued by the learned Single Bench vide order dated 15.01.2018 while allowing the writ petition being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5483/2017 (Jawahar Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) filed by the appellant, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the respondents, however, in the said enquiry, the appellant was not allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, who deposed before the Inquiry Officer. He further submits that the copies of the statements of the witnesses who deposed before the Inquiry Officer have also not been supplied to the appellant, therefore, no proper opportunity to defend his case was granted by the Inquiry Officer which is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India as also against the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel submits that as per Section 8 (3) of Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1963’), the respondent- Commandant/Commandant General was under an obligation to decide the disciplinary case in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1963 and therefore, the respondents have committed an error and illegality while passing the order dated 09.04.2018. Learned counsel submits that these very important aspects of the matter were lost sight by the learned Single Bench, while deciding the writ petition filed by the appellant and therefore, committed an error in passing the order dated 08.02.2023. He, therefore, prays that the appeal filed by the appellant may be allowed while quashing and setting aside the order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Single Bench.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. He submits that the learned Single Bench has taken note of position of law in the shape of Section 8 of the Act of 1963, which mandates that the respondents are required to pass an order giving reasons with a note of enquiry made on the subject. He further submits that it is mandated under the aforesaid provision to afford an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned in defence. Learned counsel submits that to comply with the mandate of Section 8 (3) of the Act of 1963, the respondents have conducted a fresh enquiry, in which statements of number of witnesses have been recorded and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, a detailed and reasoned order has been passed. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the order passed by the respondents on 09.04.2018 is just, proper and correct. He submits that the learned Single Bench has taken note of the detailed enquiry conducted by the respondents and letter dated 18.03.2018 written to the Director General, Home Guards, Rajasthan. He submits that there is no infirmity in the impu