Rishi Kumar Shukla vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1239 MP

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR



WRIT PETITION NO.                              14089/2018
Parties Name                  RISHI KUMAR SHUKLA

                              VS.

                              STATE OF M.P.
                              AND OTHERS
Bench Constituted             Single Bench
Judgment delivered By         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL DHAGAT
Whether       approved   for YES/NO
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For petitioner: Shri S. P. Mishra, Advocate.

                              For Respondents : Darshan Soni, Govt. Advocate

Law laid down Significant paragraph number

(O R D E R ) 05/04/2021

Petitioner has filed this writ petition calling in question

orders dated 16.5.2017 and 12.6.2018 passed by respondent

nos.2 & 3 respectively.

2. By impugned order Disciplinary Authority passed orders of

premature retirement of petitioner under Rule 24(A)(5) of Madhya

Pradesh Home Guards Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as

'Home Guards Rules, 2016'). Said order was confirmed by

Director General, Home Guards M.P. Jabalpur in appeal.

Petitioner has challenged the said orders on the ground that

order passed by Disciplinary Authority was without jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Rule 25 of

Home Guards Rules 2016. Rule 25 provides as under:-

"25(a) District Commandant:- District Commandant shall hold Orderly Room procedure upto the rank of Lance Naik and Home Guard Volunteers for acts of indiscipline and after affording opportunity of being heard may impose any penalty as mentioned in Rule 24(A).

(b) Divisional Commandant:- Divisional Commandant shall be competent to impose a penalty for any act of indiscipline as mentioned in Rule 24(A) and 24(B) in respect of volunteers to a volunteer Hawaldar or Naik or a volunteer below in rank to it."

4. Punishment which can be imposed on Home Guard

Volunteers are provided in Rule 24 of Home Guards Rules 2016,

which are as under:-

"Punishments:- The following punishments may be imposed on the Home Guards volunteers for any acts of misconduct and indiscipline:-

          (A) (1)      Reprimand;
                (2)    Censure;
                (3)    Extra parade and extra fatigue duty for
                       not more than three days;
                (4)    Suspension;
                (5)    Premature Discharge from District
                       Reserve;

(B) Fine not exceeding three days Honourarium; (C) Reduction in rank;

(D) Punishment drill, Extra Guard duty causing fatigue for a period not exceeding 28 days in duration."

5. Learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondents

supported the orders passed by Divisional Commandant and

Director General, Home Guards. Learned Govt. Advocate

supported the arguments on the ground of merits. It is

submitted by him that proper opportunity of hearing was given to

petitioner and Home Guards Rules of 2016 was followed and

proper enquiry was conducted by respondents, therefore,

impugned orders may not be interfered with. Respondents have

not stated anything regarding the jurisdiction of Divisional

Commandant to pass the impugned order.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. From perusal of the aforesaid Rules it is clear that if

punishment is to be imposed on Home Guard Volunteers is under

Rules 24(A) and 24(B), then said order shall be passed by

Divisional Commandant but when punishment is to be imposed is

only under Rule 24(A), then competent authority in respect of

Home Guard Volunteers is District Commandant.

8. District Commandant is competent to impose penalty under

Rule 24(A) of Home Guards Rules, 2016, up to the Rank of Lance

Nayak which means that he can impose penalty under section

24(A) on Home Guard Volunteers, Nayak and Lance Nayak.

Divisional Commandant is competent authority to impose penalty

in respect of Volunteers upto the Rank of Hawaldar and rank

below it, which means that he can impose penalty both under

Rule 24(A) and 24(B) on Home Guard Volunteers, Nayak, Lance

Nayak and Havaldar. Since penalty which was imposed on

petitioner, who is holding the rank of Home Guard Volunteer

(Sainik) is under Rule 24(A), therefore, competent authority to

impose punishment is District Commandant.

9. In view of the same, impugned orders dated 16.5.2017 and

12.6.2018 are quashed. Respondents are at liberty to pass fresh

orders against petitioner as per Rule 25 of M.P. Home Guards

Rules 2016.

10. Writ petition is accordingly allowed and stands disposed

of in the aforesaid terms.

(VISHAL DHAGAT) JUDGE mms

Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR TIWARI Date: 2021.04.09 17:42:54 +05'30'