Dismissed

Jawaharlal v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Feb 2023CW/5955/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this service dismissal case, the petitioner challenged the impugned order reinstating him to Border Home Guard service. The High Court observed that the fresh enquiry complied with previous orders and natural justice principles.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.

Jawaharlal Vs State and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

(1 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5955/2018

¶6

Jawarharlal S/o Late Shri Ved Prakash, By Caste Kumar, Resident Of Member No. 212, Boarder Home Guard, Bikaner 12 Kyd, Khajuwala, District- Bikaner Raj..

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

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

¶10

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

¶11

Director General Home Defence, Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj..

¶12

Deputy General Commandant, Home Defence, Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj..

¶13

----Respondents

¶14

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavit Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anamika Bishnoi for Mrs. Vandana Bhansali, AGC

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Judgment

¶17

Reserved on 30/01/2023

¶18

Pronounced on 08/02/2023

¶19

This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶20

“It is therefore, humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by issuing an appropriate order, writ, direction:-

¶21

1. That the impugned order dated 09.04.2018 (Anx.P/3) denying the petitioner from reinstatement in service on the post of Border Home Guard Bikaner may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential relief.

(2 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

2. That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Boarder Home Guard Bikaner and be allotted his original Member Belt No. 212 with the consequential relief.

¶26

3. That the impugned enquiry conducted by the respondents in pursuant to letter No. 3154 dated 16.02.2018 and same was sent to the respondent no. 3 vide letter No. 849 dated 18.03.18 may kindly be quashed and set aside with consequential relief.

¶27

4. That without prejudice to hereinabove if during the pendency of the writ petition if the post are being filled up then in such event the respondents may be directed to create one supernumerary post of Border Home Guard Bikaner for the petitioner in OBC Category.

¶28

5.Cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

¶29

6. Any other writ, order or direction which your lordship may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be issued in the favor of petitioner”.

¶30

Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner, after successfully completing the training for a period of 45 days from 01.12.2016 to 14.01.2017 at Ghadsana, was appointed vide order dated 01.02.2017 as Border Home Guard. The petitioner was however, discharged from service vide order dated 14.02.2017 in pursuance of the letter dated 02.02.2017; the petitioner being aggrieved by the said order preferred a writ petition, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5483/2017, which, vide order dated 15.01.2018 passed by this Court, was allowed, while quashing and setting aside the discharge order dated 14.02.2017, with liberty to the respondents to initiate a fresh enquiry and pass orders

(3 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

afresh within three months thereafter, strictly in accordance with law.

¶35

2.1. Thereafter, the respondents conducted a fresh enquiry in pursuant of Letter No.3154 dated 16.02.2018 and the same was sent to the respondent no.3 vide Letter No. 849 dated 18.03.2018, whereupon the respondents vide impugned order dated 09.04.2018 again discharged the petitioner from service.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have not supplied the copies of statements of witnesses, as also did not give the opportunity of crossexamination of the witnesses to the petitioner, and therefore, the enquiry has not been conducted in a fair and impartial manner, thereby violated the principles of natural justice. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has submitted a representation on 18.04.2018 before the respondents seeking his reinstatement into service, but the respondents have not considered the same. He also submitted that the respondents have not appointed an enquiry officer holding a rank higher than the Commandant.

¶37

4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Rajendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4176 of 2020) decided on 14.09.2022 .

(4 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

On other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and submitted that during the training period, the petitioner acted in an indisciplined manner, which was also was recorded in Visit Book of E-Company, Garsana by the Battalion Commandant on 19.12.2016 and 14.01.2017(Annexure-R-1).

¶42

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondents issued instructions to Battalion Commandant, Border Home Guard Dal, Bikaner and conducted the fresh enquiry. In that enquiry, certain documents and statements of the permanents staff were taken on record, and thereafter, a detailed order was passed by respondents, after due consideration of the record.

¶43

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner was given complete opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, and the petitioner could not lay any factual foundation against the allegation levelled against him; after due examination of the record, the respondents passed an order with proper conclusion, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963.

¶44

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Subrata Nath (Civil Appeal No. 7939-7940 of 2022) decided on 23.11.2022.

(5 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that any member can be discharged by Commandant or Commandant General, if he is satisfied that such member has committed an act detrimental to the good order, welfare or discipline of the Home Guards Organization.

¶49

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case and the judgments cited at the Bar.

¶50

Vide the aforementioned order dated 15.01.2018 passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5483/2017, it was observed that as per the Scheme of the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963, it was imperative upon the respondents to make a note of enquiry in writing, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, before passing the order of petitioner’s discharge from service; adherence to such requirement, at the time of passing of the order dated 15.01.2018, was not apparent on the face of the record.

¶51

11.1 Thus, vide the said order, the aforesaid writ petition was allowed, while quashing and setting aside the order dated 14.02.2017 impugned therein, with liberty to the respondents to initiate an enquiry afresh and thereafter pass fresh order, strictly in accordance with law; however, the consequential benefits arising out of quashment of the said impugned order were directed to remain subject to fresh order, which was to be passed by the respondents, in pursuance of the said order passed by this Court.

(6 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

This Court finds that in pursuance of the aforementioned order dated 15.01.2018, a fresh enquiry was conducted by concerned respondent authority, while recording statements of various witnesses; the document dated 18.03.2018, revealing the same, reads as under:-

¶56

“ mijksä fo"k;kUrxZr fuosnu gS fd çklkafxd i= ds vUrxZr fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ dks ,låchå flfoy fjV fifV'ku la[;k 5483@2017 Jh tokgj yky cuke LVsV v‚Q jktLFkku o vU; ds Øe esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; fnukad 15&01&2018 ds lEcU/k esa çdj.k dh tk¡p ¼ fresh enquiry ½ djus ds vkns'k çnku fd;s x;s FksA ftl ?kj tk¡p lEikfnr djus gsrq fuEufyf[kr nLrkostkr fjdkMZ ij fy;s x;s ,oa fuEufyf[kr LFkkbZ LVkQ o Lo;a lsodksa ds ekSf[kd dFkuksa dks fjdkMZ ij fy;k A

¶57

Ø-la-&1& cVkfy;u dekUMsUV cksMZj gkse xkMZl chdkusj ds i=kad 491 fnukad 2&2&17 tks Jheku~ egk funsZ'kd egksn; dks lEcksf/kr gSA

¶58

Ø-la-&2& Jheku~ egk funs'kd egksn; x`g j{kk eq[;ky; t;iqj ds }kjk tkjh vkns'k la[;k 2957&58 fnukad 14&2&17 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA

¶59

Ø-la-&3& Jheku~ egk funs'kd egksn; x`g j{kk eq[;ky; t;iqj ds }kjk tkjh vkns'k la[;k 8347&48 fnukad 25&4&17 tkjh fd;k x;k gSA

¶60

c;ku fy;s x;s lnL;ksa ,oa LFkkbZ LVkQ ds uke ftuds c;ku fjdkMZ ij fy;s x;s gS %

¶61

1& Jh ujflaxk jke ihålhå

¶62

2& Jh eksgu yky eqåvkj{kh

¶63

3& Jh ohj flag ihålhå dk;Zokgd dådekå bZ dEiuh ?kM+lkuk

¶64

4& Lo;a lsod& loZ Jh enu xksiky] [ksr flag] tokgj yky] jkds'k dqekj] furs'k dqekj] jktsUæ dqekj] gksrflag] mxeflag] t;iky] pku.kjke] jkts'k dqekj] jkepUæ] fouksn dqekj] fnus'k dqekj] lq'khy dqekj] lokbZ flag] :iflag] Jo.kflag] lqjsUædqxkj] veufo'uksbZ] eqds'k dqekj] gjçhr flag] dqyfoUæ flag] lknwZyflag] çoh.k dqekj] ghjkyky] lqjtkjke] lqfuydqekj] jktw flag] txnh'k] cydj.k flag] j.kohj flag gSA

¶65

cVkfy;u dekUMsUV us vius i= la[;k 491 fnukad 2&2&2017 tks Jheku~ egk funs'kd iqfyl xg j{kk eq[;ky; jktå t;iqj dks lEcksf/kr Fkh esa Jh tokgj yky cSYV uEcj 212 }kjk çf'k{k.k ds nkSjku vuq'kklughurk djus ,oa Lo;a cVkfy;u dekUMsUV }kjk çf'k{k.k ds nkSjku dh xbZ pSfdax ds le; Jh tokgj yky }kjk mä lnL; ds vuq'kklughu vkpj.k o jktuSfrd igqp dk gokyk nsdj lnL; ds fo#) vko';d dk;Zokgh djus dk fuosnu fd;k x;k Fkk ftl ij egk funs'kd egksn; us jktLFkku gkse xkMZl ,DV 1963 ds fu;e 8 ¼1½ ds vUrxZr çnÙk vf/kdkjksa dk ç;ksx djrs gq;s mä lnL; dks vius vkns'k la[;k 2957&58 fnukad 14&2&2017 ds vUrxZr lnL;rk ls iFkd

(7 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

¼fMLpktZ½ fd;k x;k FkkA rri'pkr ifjoknh }kjk iqujh{k.k çfrosnu Hkh Jheku egk funs'kd egksn; dks çLrqr fd;k x;k ftldks Hkh Jheku~ us vius vkns'k la[;k 8347&48 fnukad 25&4&2017 ds vUrxZr vLohdkj dj fn;k x;k gSA

¶70

blh Øe esa eq[;ky; ds funsZ'kkuqlkj cqfu;knh çf'k{k.k ds le; mifLFkr fu;a=d] LVkQ o Lo;a lsodk ds c;kukr fuEu gLrk{kjdrkZ ds }kjk fy;s x;sA ftuesa fuEufyf[kr rF; lkeus vk;s gSA loZ Jh ujflxk jke ihålhå] Jh eksgu yky eqåvkj{kh o Jh ohj flag ihålhå dk;Zokgd dådekå us vius c;kukr esa ;g crk;k gS fd Jh tokgj yky çf'k{k.k ds le; vuq'kklughurk ls is'k vkrk Fkk ,oa çf'k{kd LVkQ ds vkns'kksa dh vogsyuk djuk ,oa jktuSfrd ncko dk;e djuk vius jktuSfrd fj'rsnkjks ftlesa fo/kk;d] ljiap ls jlqd dk gokyk nsdj çf'k{k.k LVkQ ij ekufld ncko dk;e djus ,oa vuko';d :i ls çf'k{k.k esa vojks/k djus dk vknh FkkA blds vfrfjä çf'k{k.k esa lfEefyr Lo;a lsod Jh enuxksiky ,oa Jh [ksr flag us fn;s vius c;kukr esa ;g ckr tkfgj fd çf'k{k.k LVkQ o dekUMsUV ds fo:) Lo;a lsodks dks vuko';d HkM+dkus ,oa vius droZ~; ds çfr mnklhu FkkA ftuds c;kukr ls Hkh ;g tkfgj gksrk gS fd Jh tokgj yky vius dk;Z ds çfr ykijokg o vuq'kklghu Lo;a lsod FkkA

¶71

ifjoknh us vius Lo;a ds c;kuksa esa yxk;s x;s vkjksiks dks fujk/kkj crk;k gS ,oa loZ Jh jkds”k dqekj] furs”k dqekj] jktsUnz dqekj] gksrflag] mxe falg] t;iky] pku.k jke] jkts”k dqekj] jkepUæ] fouksn dqekj] fnus'k dqekj] lq'khy dqekj] lokbZ flag] :i flag] Jo.k flag] lqjsUædqekj] veu fo'uksbZ eqds'k dqekj] gjçhr flag] dqyfoUæ flag] lknwZy flag] çoh.k dqekj] ghjk yky] lqjtkjke] lqfuy dqekj] jktw flag] txnh'k] cydj.k flag] j.kohj flag us Hkh vius c;kukr esa ifjoknh ds dFku dk leFkZu fd;k gS A

¶72

fu"d"kZ & v/kksgLrk{kjdRrkZ }kjk leLr nLrkostks ,oa LFkkbZ LVkQ@Lo;a lsodks } kjk fn;s x;s c;kukr dk xgu fo'ys"k.k djus ij ;g ikuk çfrr gksrk gS ,oa ;g ik;k x;k dh Lo;a lsodks us ,d jk; gksdj vius c;kukr esa fdlh ncko ds ;k vU; dkj.k o'k ifjoknh ds dFku dk leFkZu fd;k gS tks dFku vlR; çfrr gksrs gSaA D;ksafd çf'k{k.k LVkQ }kjk fn;s x;s c;kukr ls ifjoknh ij yxk;s x;s leLr vkjksi çekf.kr gksrs gSA ifjoknh dk dFku vlR; çfrr gksrk gSA

¶73

blds vfrfjä o"kZ 2013&14 esa fuEu gLrk{kdrkZ ds le{k lnL;ksa ds ukekadu çfØ;k ds le; Hkh ch dEiuh iwxy esa Hkh blh çdkj jktuSfrd ncko Myokus gsrq ckj ckj nwjHkk"k ls ukekadu gsrq p;u djus dk ncko Myok;k x;k FkkA blls vkSj Hkh Li"V gksrk gS fd ifjoknh vuq'kklughu ,oa jktuSfrd ncko Myokdj vuqfpr dk;Z djus dk vknh Fkk ,oa orZeku esa Hkh bl çdkj dk dk;Z dj jgk gSA ftls foHkkx esa lnL; j[kus ij foHkkx dh Noh ,oe vuq'kklu ij foijhr çHkko iM+rk gS A

¶74

pwafd mä Lo;a lsod dks Jheku~ egk funs'kd egksn; xg j{kk eq[;ky; t;iqj us vkns'k la[;k 2957&58 fnukad 14&2&17 ds vUrxZr lnL;rk ls iFkd ¼fMLpktZ½ fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i vfxze vkns'k Hkh eq[;ky; Lrj ij gh fd;k tkuk gS D;ksfd Jheku~

(8 of 9)

[2023/RJJD/002971]

[CW-5955/2018]

egk funs'kd egksn; }kjk lsok ls i`Fkd djus ds vkns'k tkjh gksus ds dkj.k vc iqu% vkns'k tkjh djuk dekUMsUV dk;kZy; ds vf/kdkj {ks= esa ugha gS A

¶79

ekuuh; U;k;ky; us vius fu.kZ; fnukad 15&1&2018 esa 3 ekg dh vof/k esa vkns'k tkjh dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh gSA mä frfFk ls igys mä çdj.k dk fuLrkj.k djokus dh —ik djkos A

¶80

vr% t‚p fjiksVZ Jheku~ th lsokesa okLrs voyksdukFkZ ,oe vkns'kkFkZ lknj çLrqr gSA ”

¶81

Thus, this Court finds that due compliance of the aforementioned order dated 15.01.2018 passed by this Court has been made by the respondents, while adhering to the prescriptions laid down under the Scheme of the Rajasthan Home Guards Act, 1963 and the principles of natural justice. 14. This Court further finds that the respondents are the disciplined force, and thus, they ought to be firm in imposing discipline amongst the personnel of the force, and therefore, any act of indiscipline on the part of their personnel (like the present petitioner) needs to be viewed seriously and dealt with strictly, with due adherence to the provisions of law. It is a matter of record that before passing the order impugned herein, the respondents have taken into due consideration all the factual and legal aspects, more particularly, the discipline aspect of the matter, apart from what has been observed by this Court in the aforementioned order dated 15.01.2018; and such a due consideration, in the factual matrix of the present case, does not call for vitiation or quashment of the impugned order passed by the respondents.

¶82