Manipur High Court
Paonam Khengba Meitei vs Vrs on 4 August, 2025
Author: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
Bench: Ahanthem Bimol Singh
LAISHRA Digitally signed
by LAISHRAM
M DHAKESHORI
DEVI
DHAKESH Date:
ORI DEVI 2025.08.05
10:11:16 +05'30'
Item No. 75
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
WP(C) No. 485 of 2023
Paonam Khengba Meitei ...Petitioner/s
Vrs.
State of Manipur & 3 ors. ...Respondent/s
-B E F O R E-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH
04.08.2025
Heard Mr. N. Zequeson, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the
respondents.
[2] The present writ petition has been filed seeking for
quashing the impugned letter dated 29-06-2022 of the Addl. Director
General of Police (HG), Manipur, according approval for discharging of
service of the Home Guards, order dated 30-06-2022 issued by the
Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur, calling off Home Guard
Personnel from duty and strucking off from the strength of Manipur
Home Guards organization and order dated 30-06-2022 issued by
the Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur, discharging Home
Guards personnel including the petitioner from duty for their gross
misconduct.
WP(C) No. 85 of 2023 Page 1
[3] It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner that the issue raised in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the judgment and order dated 25-06-2025
passed by this Court in three writ petitions, viz. WP(C) No. 539 of
2023, WP(C) No. 478 of 2022 and WP(C) No. 480 of 2022. It has
further been submitted by the learned counsel that the present writ
petitioner along with three other Home Guards personnel were
discharged from service by the same letter and orders impugned in
the present writ petition and that the said impugned letter and the
orders have been quashed and set aside by this court by passing the
aforesaid judgment and order. The learned counsel submitted that the
present writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the said judgment
and order passed by this Court by granting similar relief as has been
granted to the other three Home Guards personnel.
[4] The operative portion of the said judgment and order are
reproduced for ready reference:-
"[13] This Court has perused the materials on record, the
submissions made at bar and the relevant law in this regard.
[14] It is an admitted fact that the three petitioner and another
person were discharged and their names were struck off from the
roll of Home Guards personnel of Manipur vide the common
impugned order dated 30.06.2022. It is stated that the discharge
order was issued on the recommendation of the enquiry report
dated 16.06.2022 conducted by a Committee headed by Mr.
Nishit Kumar Ujjwal, IPS, Inspector General of Police (Zone-III),
WP(C) No. 85 of 2023 Page 2
Manipur; Mr. Kabib. K, IPS, Dy. Inspector General of Police
(Range-I) and Mr. Watham Basu Singh, MPS, Spl. AIG
(Housing). This Court has examined minutely the sealed original
file submitted by the learned GA. On perusal of the record, it is
found that the Committee examined 118 Home Guard/MR/IRB
personnel and other officials to ascertain the factum of collection
of money by the petitioners and other. After examining all the
materials on record, the Committee made three
recommendations- (i) immediate detachment of approximate 85
MR/IRB personnel from the Commandant Home Guard office, (ii)
discouraging any association with Home Guard Welfare
Association involved in illegal collection of money, and (iii)
restructuring of Home Guards and their deployment pattern.
Thereafter, the four discharged personnel (including the three
petitioners) were issued with similar show cause notices all dated
23.06.2023 to submit their comments/defence to the alleged
misconduct of illegal collection of money from Home Guard
personnel as found by the Committee and as admitted in their
written statements. The petitioners submitted separate and
similar replies all dated 25.06.2022 to the show cause notices
denying the allegation of illegal collection of money from serving
Home Guards personnel. It is also requested to furnish a copy of
the alleged enquiry report and the written statements allegedly
submitted by the petitioners. It has been prayed for dropping
them from the charge. Vide letter dated 29.06.2022, Addl.
Director General of Police (HG), Manipur informed the
Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur about the approval
of discharge of four Home Guards personnel (including the three
petitioners) from service for their gross misconduct. Thereafter,
the Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur issued the
impugned order dated 30.06.2022 calling off the four personnel
from duty and their names were stuck off from the strength of
Manipur Home Guards organisation with immediate effect in
public interest.
[15] It is seen that the discharge order was purportedly issued
on the recommendation of the Committee's report dated
16.06.2022 and suggested three recommendations for reforms.
However, on minute examination of the report, it does not
suggest for the discharge of the four personnel (including the
petitioners), even though some other persons were also named
in the report. In the discharge order, it has been mentioned as
issued in public interest, whereas the approval by Addl. DGP
(HG) was for gross misconduct. The discharge order has not
considered the replies submitted by the petitioners to the show
cause notices. No charge was framed against the petitioners, nor
WP(C) No. 85 of 2023 Page 3
was any opportunity given to them to answer to the allegation of
illegal collection of money. This Court is of the considered view
that the alleged enquiry proceedings and the discharge order
violate the principles laid down in Section 11(4) of the Manipur
Home Guards Act, 1989 and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home
Guards Rules, 1996. The Act and Rule contemplate a full-
fledged enquiry, where the order of dismissal ought to be issued
by recording reasons thereof and by affording a reasonable
opportunity of being heard the personnel in their defence. Only
after following all these mandatory steps, an order awarding
punishment can be passed.
[16] In the present case, the State respondents have given a go-
by to the mandatory provisions of Section 11 of the Act of 1989
and Rule 9 of the Rule of 1996. The basic tenets of the principles
of natural justice have been flouted and the same cannot be
ignored even if the statute is silent. In the case in hand, the
statute stipulates availing of the opportunity of defending.
Surprisingly, no memorandum of charge has been furnished to
the petitioners and they have been discharged without affording
any opportunity of presenting their case.
[17] In short, the order of discharge has been issued flouting the
mandate of statute. This Court has no hesitation in setting aside
the impugned discharge order dated 30.06.2022 issued by the
Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur with respect to the
three petitioners. The respondents are directed to re-instate the
petitioners to their service with full-service benefits, as the
discharge order was issued in violation of the mandatory
provisions of Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act,
1989 and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996.
However, the respondents have liberty to initiate appropriate
proceedings against the petitioners as per rule, if so desired. It is
made clear that this Court does not express any opinion on the
merit of the case specially with respect to the allegation of
misconduct against the petitioners."
[5] Mr. Shyam Sharma, learned GA appearing for the
respondents fairly submitted that the present writ petitioner as well as
the other three petitioners in the aforesaid three writ petitions were
discharged from service by the same impugned order and that the
impugned letters and impugned orders were quashed and set aside by
WP(C) No. 85 of 2023 Page 4
this Court by passing the above mentioned judgment and order dated
25-06-2025 in WP(C) No. WP(C) No. 539 of 2023 and two other writ
petitions. It has further been submitted by the learned GA that no
appeal or review has been filed against the said judgment till today.
[6] Taking into consideration the submission advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the
records as well as the aforesaid judgment and order dated 25-06-
2025, this Court is of the considered view that the issue raised in the
present writ petition is squarely covered by the said judgment and
order. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in terms of the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 25-06-2025 passed by this Court
in WP(C) No. 539 of 2023 and other two writ petitions. Consequently,
the impugned letter dated 29-06-2022 from the Addl. Director General
of Police (HG), Manipur according approval for discharging the
petitioner from service, orders dated 30-06-2022 issued by the
Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur, calling off and discharging
the petitioner from service are hereby set aside.
[7] The respondents are further directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service with full service benefits. It is, however, made
clear that the respondents are at liberty to initiate proceeding against
the petitioner as per rules if so advised.
WP(C) No. 85 of 2023 Page 5
[8] With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is
disposed of.
JUDGE
Dhakeshori
WP(C) No. 85 of 2023 Page 6
