Allahabad High Court
Prem Singh vs The State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 September, 2022
Bench: Rajesh Singh Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13355 of 2022
Petitioner :- Prem Singh
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shailesh Verma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of this petition the petitioner has assailed the order dated 26.4.2008 passed by the District Commandant, Home Guards, Moradabad (Annexure no. 1) dispensing the services of the petitioner on the post of Home Guards. The petitioner has also assailed the order dated 11.3.2011 (Annexure no. 2) passed by the Divisional Commandant of Home Guards, Region Moradabad rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
The impugned order has been passed for the reason that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent from September, 2007 to December, 2007 and he did not participate in three refresher parades. In compliance of the principles of natural justice letters have been issued to the petitioner to participate in the departmental inquiry and also a show cause notice has been issued on the address given by the petitioner but such address was non-existent, therefore, the address of the petitioner has been declared as 'Ghost Address'. The Appellate Authority has also observed that since the address of the petitioner was not traceable rather it was non-existing, therefore, the notice / information regarding departmental inquiry could not be served upon him, therefore, the appeal of the petitioner was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a second appeal to the Commandant General of Home Guards, Head Quarters, U.P., Lucknow, opposite party no. 2 and said second appeal was highly belated but in compliance of order dated 12.3.2021 passed in Writ-A No. 3850 of 2021 that second appeal has been rejected vide order dated 26.8.2021 (Annexure no. 5). While rejecting second appeal the Second Appellate Authority has considered the submissions of the petitioner and found that no new / fresh material has been placed by the petitioner to consider his grievance and his appeal has already been rejected by the Appellate Authority and his appeal is not liable to be considered.
Attention has been drawn towards the judgment and order of this Court passed in re: Dheer Singh vs. State of U.P. and others reported in [2021(9) ADJ 218] wherein this Court has observed that those Home Guards enrolled u/s 7 of the Home Guards Act. 1963 will not be a holder of Civil Post and will not enjoy any protection available under Article 311 of the Constitution of India but as soon as he is called to perform any duty under section 8 of the Act he will become holder of a Civil Post and will enjoy the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
I am in the agreement of the aforesaid judgment of this Court to the effect that a protection u/s 311 should be afforded to the Home Guards, if they are called to perform the duties u/s 8 of the Act but the facts and circumstances of the present case are different inasmuch as the disciplinary authority initiated departmental inquiry and tried to inform the petitioner to participate in the inquiry and to explain the reason as to why he was absent in an unauthorized manner and as to why he did not participate in the three refresher parades but since the address of the petitioner was fake and it was non-existent and not traceable, therefore, such information could not be served on the petitioner. The protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India may be provided to those persons who have informed their address to the department but not for those who have not informed his / her correct address. If the address of any employee is not correct and such address is not traceable, there would be reasonable difficulty with the department to inform such person / employee to participate in the departmental inquiry.
Besides, on account of absence from September, 2007 to the December, 2007 the services of the petitioner have been dispensed with on 26.4.2008 and it would be not appropriate to interfere with the order dated 26.4.2008 after about after more than 14 years. Then no proper explanation regarding the correct address of the petitioner has been given in this petition. In para 3 of the impugned order which clearly indicates that the address of the petitioner has been declared as 'Ghost Address'.
Therefore, in view of the facts and circumstances stated herein above, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned orders.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Learned counsel has requested that the liberty may be given to the petitioner to do the needful exercise as per law approaching the competent court of law / authority, on that there is no need to give such liberty inasmuch as nobody may be debarred to approach the competent authority or law for redressal of his grievance, if permissible under the law.
.
(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)
Order Date :- 15.9.2022
Om.
