Jharkhand High Court
Ambuj Pandey vs State Of Jharkhand on 19 January, 2021
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No.6095 of 2009
-------
Ambuj Pandey ... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Jharkhand.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad.
3. Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad.
4. District Commandant, Home Guards, Dhanbad.
... ... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
-------
For the Petitioner :Mr. Mahesh Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Res. State : Mr. Devesh Krishna, S.C. (Mines)III
-------
09/19.01.2021 Heard learned counsel for the parties through
V.C.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside letter no.308 dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-2), issued by respondent no.4 whereby petitioner has been removed from service.
3. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Home Guard in the year 1985 and has rendered his services to the satisfaction of respondents. All of a sudden an F.I.R was lodged on 8th April, 2009 and service of this petitioner has been terminated without giving any show-cause notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard by the order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-2), which is under challenge. 2
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that similarly situated other set of petitioners have previously preferred W.P. (S) No.5852 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No.504 of 2010 and those writ applications were allowed in favour of the petitioners and it was held by this Court that termination of Home Guard cannot be made without issuing any show-cause notice or without giving any opportunity of being heard.
5. Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent-State while refereeing para-8 of its counter affidavit submits that in this organization, Home Guard are enrolled for four years and after the lapse of four years they are re-enrolled on the condition that they have good moral character and are having no bad reputation at all, as is evident from Jharkhand Home Guard Act, 2005. In Sections 8 & 9 of the Act, it has been clearly stated as to how Home Guards are discharged and called up for duties.
So far as show-cause notice is concerned, after the FIR was lodged against this petitioner, he was on the run, and after some period he surrenders before the court; as such no notice could not be served.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that this Court vide its order dated 28.06.2012 stayed the operation, implementation and execution of the impugned order dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-2). Thereafter counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Devesh Krishna, 3 learned counsel for the State during course of argument fairly submits that the issues involved in this case is same and similar with the issue involved in W.P. (S) No.5852 of 2009 and W.P.(S) No.504 of 2010, which has been decided in favour of the delinquent.
7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order as contained in letter no.308 dated 15.07.2009 (Annexure-2), issued by respondent no.4 is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondents are at liberty to initiate proceeding afresh, if so legally advised in strict adherence to the principles of natural justice and in consonance with the relevant provisions of Jharkhand Home Guard Act, 2005.
8. With the aforesaid terms, the instant writ application stands allowed.
(Deepak Roshan, J.) Fahim/-