[2025:RJ-JP:31418]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9788/2012 Uma Shankar Nagar S/o Shri Behrulal Nagar, aged about 24 years, R/o 124, Hanumangadi, Kunhadi, Kota (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Home, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Director General Civil Defence and Home Guards, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Order

12/08/2025

1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 02.11.2011 passed by the Commandant, Home Guards, Training Centre, Kota whereby the name of the petitioner has been struck off from the role of Home Guards, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner got himself enrolled with the Commandant Home Guard Training Centre, Kota in the year 2008. Such enrollment was initially for the period of five years, subject to further renewal, where he was served with a memorandum dated 20.07.2011 leveling allegations of grabbing illegal money from the two wheeler riders driving without helmet. Pursuant to aforesaid memorandum, the impugned order of discharge dated 02.11.2011 has been passed mentioning therein that although opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner, yet he did not utter anything except showing himself as an innocent person.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole basis for striking off name of the petitioner from the role of Home Guard is that one letter dated 12.07.2011 was issued by the Deputy Superintendent, Traffic, Kota (for short "Dy.SP) leveling the allegations of taking illegal money.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that simultaneously, the petitioner also submitted one application before the complainant Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Kota for re-examining the matter. On his application, the aforesaid authority conducted enquiry and took statements of concerned persons. Thereafter, he submitted one report dated 17.11.2011 to the Inspector General of Police, Kota Range, Kota wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner was not involved in any kind of misconduct including taking illegal money. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid report was submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Traffic, Kota after the impugned order of discharge dated 02.11.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted one application in the form of appeal before the Director General, Civil Defence mentioning therein that there are contradictory findings and Dy.SP (Traffic) after conducting proper enquiry has given a finding that no misconduct whatsoever was committed by the petitioner and he was not indulged in the said incident of taking illegal money from general public. The application/appeal filed by the petitioner was decided by the Deputy Director Civil Defence but no finding whatsoever has been given and his application/appeal has been rejected in quite mechanical and cryptic manner.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that services of Home Guard are considered to be voluntary services under the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and the persons working as volunteer in Home Guard services do not hold any post. However, on receiving complaint against the petitioner, in order to provide fair opportunity, an enquiry was conducted and after conducting enquiry, on the basis of material available, the Commandant Home Guard Training Centre, Kota has rightly discharged the petitioner on the role of Home Guards. It has been submitted that subsequent report, if any, submitted by Dy.SP, Kota is of no help to the petitioner as it has come into existence subsequent to the impugned order. It has also been submitted that the application/appeal submitted by the petitioner against the discharge has been duly considered by