Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajesh vs Home Department on 24 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
1 WP-23271-2019
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. 23271 of 2019
RAJESH
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 petitioner 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-23271-2019
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 petitioner 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.
In the rejoinder, the petitioner has given the details of the notice and
the reply submitted by him. The aforesaid details are reproduced as under:-
S.NO. Detail of document Served on Annexure of Already on
Additional record as
reply
1. 621-NOTICE 11-07- R-8, PAGE 9 P/23- PAGE
2019 to submit 5:15 PM
written explanation
in 2 days
REPLY BY WAY P/25-
OF LEGAL PAGE179
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
3 WP-23271-2019
NOTICE DATED
13-07-2019
2. 655-REMINDER 13-07- R-8, Page 10
NOTICE DATED 2019 at
12-07-2019 to
submit written 6 PM
explanation in 2
days
REPLY BY WAY P/26 PG-199
OF LEGAL
NOTICE DATED
16-07-2019
3. 701-REMINDER 18-07- R-8, Page 11 P/27 PG-210
NOTICE DATED 2019 at
17-07-2019 to 1:30 PM
submit written
explanation in 2
days
REPLY BY WAY P/28 PG-211
OF LETTER
DATED 20-07-
4. 780-REMINDER 27-07- R-8, Page 12 P/29 PG-217
NOTICE DATED 2019 at
27-07-2019 to 3:25 PM
submit written
explanation in 2
days
REPLY BY WAY P/30 PG-218
OF LETTER
DATED 31-07-
5. 1062-NOTICE 28-09- R-8, Page 17 P/37 PG-305
DATED 26-09- 2019 AT
2019 to appear on 6 PM
01-10-2019
Reply dated 01-10- P/40 AT
2019 for
compliance with PG 335
circular 38.
Reply by way of P/41 AT PG
03-10-2019
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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
4 WP-23271-2019
petitioner. Apart from that, the same was submitted by way of legal notice.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that though the appeal is
provided under Rule 26 of MP Home Guard Rules, 2016 but the remedy of
appeal would not be efficacious in the present case because the order has
been passed on the direction by the respondent no.2.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the
services of the petitioner has been terminated by a stigmatic order without
giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The
reply submitted by him by way of legal notice has not been considered 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 petitioner to file proper reply and
without giving opportunity of hearing, they have passed the order without
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner 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 petitioner.
In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order of termination/discharge
is set aside.
The respondent no.4/competent authority is directed to pass a fresh
order after taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner.
The petitioner is granted 10 days' time from today to submit a fresh reply and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:28110
5 WP-23271-2019
the respondent no.4 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
