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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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--
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
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
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.
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
