Gujarat High Court
Devendrasinh Nirmalsinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 24 November, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11443 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
DEVENDRASINH NIRMALSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. RAAJEN D JADHAV(10026) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR MITUL GAUTAM ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 24/11/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam for the respondent- State.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter was Page 1 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined taken up for final disposal. Hence, RULE. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of rule for the respondents.
3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 30.10.2021 removing him from the post of Home Guard, and the appellate order dated 28.02.2022 whereby the removal order was confirmed.
4. The brief facts of the petition, as stated by learned advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav, are as under:
4.1 The petitioner was appointed to the post of Home Guard in October 2004 and was accordingly selected as a Home Guard. Upon his selection and appointment, he was issued an ID card and began performing his duties as a Home Guard. 4.2 The authorities found that the petitioner had installed an application known as the 'Kutumb' app on his mobile phone and that he was the administrator of the said app. He used to Page 2 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined share the link of the Kutumb application on social media, and anyone who clicked the link and joined the group was asked to provide his photo ID, identity card, and photograph. This conduct was considered prejudicial to the discipline and morale of a force such as the Home Guard. Therefore, on 07.04.2021, the Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard, requested the District Commander, Home Guard, Bhavnagar, to submit a report regarding the activities of Mr. Gohil. The report was required to be submitted within three days. How the aforesaid letter sent by the Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard, Gujarat State, to the District Commander, Home Guard, Bhavnagar, was communicated is not evident from the record. However, as per the record, on the very same day, the District Commander, Home Guard, Bhavnagar, issued a letter to three persons--namely, M. D. Raijada, Sub-Inspector (Instructor), N. S. Gohil, Staff Officer (Public Relations), and L. C. Koradia, Staff Officer (Training)--directing them to submit a report Page 3 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined regarding the petitioner's activities concerning the Kutumb application, after obtaining statements from members of the Home Guard, within one day.
4.3 On the very next day, vide report dated 08.04.2021, the three officers informed the District Commander, Home Guard, that the petitioner's activities could damage the reputation of a disciplined force like the Home Guard, and that it amounted to an attempt to provoke members of the unit against the Government. They stated that if the petitioner's activity of forming a group under the name 'Gujarat Home Guard Seva Samiti' on the Kutumb application was not immediately stopped, members of the Home Guard might be misled and could begin undertaking activities against the Government, thereby jeopardizing the reputation of the force. They therefore recommended that appropriate disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. Page 4 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined 4.4 Thereafter, the District Commander, Home Guard, Bhavnagar, by a detailed letter dated 09.04.2021 addressed to the Commandant General, Home Guard, Gujarat State, straightaway recommended the petitioner's termination even before conducting any formal inquiry. 4.5 Pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation, as seen from the show cause notice-cum-charge-sheet dated 04.05.2021, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice-cum- charge-sheet calling upon him to explain why, in view of the activities mentioned therein, his services should not be terminated. 4.6 The petitioner replied to the show cause notice vide communication dated 30.05.2021. Thereafter, without conducting a full-fledged inquiry, the petitioner's services were terminated by order dated 30.10.2021 passed by the Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard, Gujarat State. When the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, the appeal was also Page 5 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined rejected by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department, vide order dated 28.02.2022. Hence, the present petition has been filed.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav, appearing for the petitioner, submitted from the record that vital documents--such as the Inquiry Report dated 08.04.2021, the statements of Home Guards on the basis of which the said report was prepared, and the material alleged to be provocative or capable of inciting revolt against the State Government--were not supplied to the petitioner.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav submitted that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself, as no full-fledged departmental inquiry was ever ordered or conducted against him. He further contended that the petitioner's services were terminated by invoking the powers under Section 6(B)(2)(1-A). However, according to learned advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav, while passing the Page 6 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined termination order, the procedure prescribed under Section 6B(2), which mandates affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent, was not followed.
5.2 Therefore, according to learned advocate Mr. Raajen Jadhav, this is a case of absence of material against the petitioner as well as a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside, as it is illegal, contrary to the provisions of law, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam, appearing for the respondent-State, vehemently opposed the petition and drew the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in- reply filed by the respondents, stating that the Home Guard is a disciplined force and its members are expected not to indulge in any activity that may disturb the force or lead to Page 7 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined any revolt against the State. Although certain documents were not annexed to the affidavit-in- reply, the original file was produced before the Court--though the Court had not asked for it--but since the officer was present, the file was shown for the Court's perusal. On that basis, it was submitted that statements of members of the Home Guard, recorded against the petitioner, do exist on record. Certain screenshots of the Kutumb application, particularly of the group created by the petitioner titled 'Home Guard Seva Samiti,' were also shown to the Court. The Court noted that the petitioner had posted in that group about the disparity in the retirement age among disciplined forces, stating that while the retirement age in other disciplined forces is 58 years, it is 55 years in the Home Guard. However, these documents did not form part of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent- State.
6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam, relying on the above documents, Page 8 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined submitted that the petitioner attempted to form a group on a social media application and circulated its link among members of the Home Guard with the intention of provoking them, thereby affecting the discipline of the force. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner's services were terminated in exercise of the powers conferred upon the competent authority, and that the petitioner's appeal was also rejected in accordance with the powers vested in the appellate authority. Hence, this Court may dismiss the petition.
6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam further submitted that the petitioner was also charged with inappropriate behaviour toward his superiors, which was another factor considered by the authority while terminating his services. He therefore sought to justify the action of termination.
7. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. I Page 9 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined have also considered Rule 6-B(2) of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947, which has been invoked. Rule 6-B(2) reads as under:-
"(2) When the Commandant General or the Commandant passes an order for suspending, reducing, dismissing or fining any member of the Home Guards under sub-section (1), he shall record such order or cause the same to be recorded, together with the reasons therefore and a note of the inquiry made in writing and no such order shall be passed by the Commandant General or the Commandant unless the person concerned is given an opportunity to be heard in his defence."
8. A reading of Rule 6-B(2) indicates that it incorporates the requirement of adhering to the principles of natural justice, as it specifically provides that no such order shall be passed by the Commandant General or the Commandant unless the person concerned is given an opportunity of being heard in his defence. In the present case, the material considered by the authority--namely, the statements of the Home Guard members, the screenshots of the application through which the petitioner created the group, and any other material relied upon-- Page 10 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined was never supplied to the petitioner.
9. Even learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mitul Gautam, in the presence of the instructing officers, could not deny or dispute this fact. Furthermore, the learned Assistant Government Pleader was unable to point to any notice from the original file demonstrating that the petitioner had been called for a personal hearing and had failed to avail the same.
10. The fact remains that although a show cause notice and charge-sheet were issued to the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his reply, the exercise remained a mere eye-wash, creating an impression as if a full-fledged inquiry had been conducted. However, at no point were the principles governing a full-fledged departmental inquiry followed, nor was any sufficient opportunity of hearing afforded to the petitioner, as is evident from the record.
11. Even the final termination order dated 30.10.2021 is silent as to whether any Page 11 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. The said order, after narrating the charges levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice or charge-sheet, merely states in one line that upon consideration of the defence/explanation submitted by the petitioner and the inquiry report, the impugned order is passed.
12. This clearly indicates that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to confront the material or the inquiry report relied upon by the authority, on the basis of which the disciplinary action was contemplated against him. Not only that, the punishment order dated 30.10.2021 does not mention anywhere the date on which the petitioner was called for a personal hearing, nor does it indicate that any notice was ever served upon the petitioner.
13. Further, the material made available for the Court's perusal from the original file indicates that at no point did the petitioner Page 12 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined use any provocative language that could substantiate the respondent authorities' apprehension that he was attempting to gather support for a revolt against the Government. All that the Court could find was that the petitioner had raised a grievance regarding the discriminatory retirement age, and this was erroneously treated as an attempt to instigate revolt against the State authorities.
14. Even the statements on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued--namely, the statements of the Home Guard members--indicate that the petitioner did not force anyone, but had merely sent a link to join the group. Even assuming that there existed any statement (though none was shown to the Court) suggesting that the petitioner had compelled someone to join the group, the petitioner ought to have been given an opportunity to confront such person. No such opportunity was afforded in the present case.
Page 13 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/11443/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 24/11/2025 undefined
15. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the documents available on record, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the petitioner has been terminated without there being any material to justify such termination. Moreover, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to Rule 6-B(2) of the Home Guards Act, 1957. Consequently, the petitioner's termination, as well as the confirmation of such termination in appeal vide orders dated 30.10.2021 and 28.02.2022 respectively, cannot be sustained.
16. Accordingly, both these orders dated 30.10.2021 and 28.02.2022 are required to be quashed and set aside, and are hereby quashed and set aside. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 14 of 14 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Fri Nov 28 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Nov 28 23:41:52 IST 2025