Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Pushpa Dodiya vs Home Department on 24 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
1 WP-9017-2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 24th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9017 of 2020
SMT. PUSHPA DODIYA AND OTHERS
Versus
HOME DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Aditya Vaibhav Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rajwardhan Gawde learned counsel for the respondent/state.
ORDER
The application for urgent hearing has already been allowed and the
petition was fixed for final hearing at motion stage.
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging the order dated 01.10.2019 passed by respondent no.3 and
4 whereby the services of the petitioners as Home Guard has been terminated
as per the directions of respondent no.2.
The Homeguards of MP, who are governed by MP Homeguards Act,
1947 had filed writ petitions bearing no.10000/2010, 8281/2011 and
18526/2010 before this Court for claiming benefits granted to the regular
employees of the State Government, particularly of the police department
and other reliefs. The said writ petition was partly allowed vide order dated
02-12-2011. The said order was challenged in WA 80/2012, which was
dismissed. The order of Division Bench was challenged before the Hon'ble
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
2 WP-9017-2020
Supreme Court in SLP (C) no.21470-21471/2014, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court only changed the date of granting basic pay from 01-01-2011 to 01-12-
2011. A similar case claiming regularization was filed by Homeguards of the
state of Himanchal Pradesh, Punjab and Haryana and Delhi was filed before
the Apex Court, which was also partly allowed on 11-03-2015. In view of
the above, the Home guard rules 2016 were framed by the state government.
In view of the above judgments and rules framed by the State
Government, the Petitioners herein filed multiple representations before the
authorities to grant them the benefits but no action was taken. Thereafter, a
representation before Director General of Home guards was filed on behalf
of the petitioners by All India Home Guard Welfare Association but still no
action was taken.
The respondents have filed the reply and submitted that despite
number of notices sent by the respondents, the petitioners did not respond to
the same and thus, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that
the order was passed without issuing any show cause notice is not
sustainable.
The additional reply has been filed by the state. In the additional reply
also they have not denied the aforesaid reply which was submitted by the
petitioners. Except that, the same was submitted by way of legal notice.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
services of the petitioners has been terminated by a stigmatic order without
giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
The reply submitted by him by way of legal notice has not been considered
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
3 WP-9017-2020
by them. In the additional reply, they have stated that the same was not a
reply but the same was submitted by way of legal notice. If that was the
stand of the respondent, they could have asked the petitioners to file proper
reply and without giving the opportunity of hearing, they have passed the
order without considering the reply submitted by the petitioners by way of
legal notice.
Upon perusal of the impugned order of termination, this Court finds
that the order has been passed on the charges, which is clear from the column
no.1 where his character has been referred. It is established law that the
services of an employee cannot be terminated by a stigmatic order without
giving any show cause notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of termination/discharge
and order passed by the appellate authority are quashed.
The respondent no.5/competent authority is directed to pass a fresh
order after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioners.
The petitioners are granted 10 days' time from today to submit a fresh reply
and the respondent no.5 is directed to consider the said reply and will pass
fresh order within the period of 60 days from the date of filing of the reply in
accordance with law by passing a reasoned and speaking order.
With the aforesaid, the present petition is allowed and disposed of.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Sourabh
