[Cites 8, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Jawaharlal vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 18 February, 2026

Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur

Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur

[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       AT JODHPUR
                   D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2023

Jawaharlal S/o Late Ved Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Kumar, Resident Of Member No. 212, Boarder Home Guard,
Bikaner 12 Kyd, Khajuwala, District- Bikaner Rajasthan.
                                                                         ----Appellant
                                       Versus
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
         Home          Department,           Government             Of     Rajasthan,
         Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2.       The Commissioner, Home Department, Government Of
         Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.
3.       The Director General, Home Defence, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4.       The Deputy General Commandant, Home Defence, Jaipur,
         Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. Shankar Singh Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Deepak Chandak for
                                   Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

18/02/2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

08.02.2023 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.5955/2018 (Jawaharlal V/s State of Raj. &

Ors.); whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has

been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in pursuance

of the directions issued by the learned Single Bench vide order

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]

dated 15.01.2018 while allowing the writ petition being S.B.Civil

Writ Petition No.5483/2017 (Jawahar Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)

filed by the appellant, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the

respondents, however, in the said enquiry, the appellant was not

allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, who deposed before the

Inquiry Officer. He further submits that the copies of the

statements of the witnesses who deposed before the Inquiry

Officer have also not been supplied to the appellant, therefore, no

proper opportunity to defend his case was granted by the Inquiry

Officer which is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution

of India as also against the principles of natural justice. Learned

counsel submits that as per Section 8 (3) of Rajasthan Home

Guards Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1963'), the

respondent- Commandant/Commandant General was under an

obligation to decide the disciplinary case in accordance with the

provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1963 and therefore, the

respondents have committed an error and illegality while passing

the order dated 09.04.2018. Learned counsel submits that these

very important aspects of the matter were lost sight by the

learned Single Bench, while deciding the writ petition filed by the

appellant and therefore, committed an error in passing the order

dated 08.02.2023. He, therefore, prays that the appeal filed by

the appellant may be allowed while quashing and setting aside the

order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Single Bench.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has

vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel

for the appellant. He submits that the learned Single Bench has

taken note of position of law in the shape of Section 8 of the Act

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]

of 1963, which mandates that the respondents are required to

pass an order giving reasons with a note of enquiry made on the

subject. He further submits that it is mandated under the

aforesaid provision to afford an opportunity of hearing to the

person concerned in defence. Learned counsel submits that to

comply with the mandate of Section 8 (3) of the Act of 1963, the

respondents have conducted a fresh enquiry, in which statements

of number of witnesses have been recorded and after giving a

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, a detailed and

reasoned order has been passed. Learned counsel, therefore,

submits that the order passed by the respondents on 09.04.2018

is just, proper and correct. He submits that the learned Single

Bench has taken note of the detailed enquiry conducted by the

respondents and letter dated 18.03.2018 written to the Director

General, Home Guards, Rajasthan. He submits that there is no

infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Single Bench.

He prays that the order passed by learned Single Judge does not

call for any interference by this court and therefore, the appeal

filed by the appellant may be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and

gone through the relevant record of the case.

6. Section 8 of the Act of 1963 clearly mandates three

conditions, if a volunteer is dismissed from service. For brevity,

section 8 of the Act of 1963 is reproduced as under:-

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]

"8. Punishment of members for neglect of duty etc.,-

(1) The Commandant General shall have the authority to suspend, reduce or dismiss or fine, to an amount not exceeding fifty rupees, any member of the Home Guards, under his control, if such member, without reasonable cause, on being called out under section 4 neglects or refuses to obey such order or to discharge his functions and duties as a member of Home Guards or to obey any lawful order or direction given to him for the performance of his functions and duties or is guilty of any breach of discipline or misconduct. The commandant shall also have the authority to dismiss any member of the Home Guards on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction for the commission of an offence involving moral turpitude or an offence against this Act. The Commandant General shall have the like authority in respect of any member of the Home Guards appointed to a post under his immediate control.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Commandant shall have the authority to discharge any member of the Home Guards at any time subject to such conditions as may be prescribed if, in the opinion of the Commandant, the services of such member are no longer required. The Commandant General shall have the like authority in respect of any member of the Home Guards appointed to a post under his immediate control.

(3)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.

(4) Any member of the Home Guards aggrieved by an order of the Commandant may appeal against such order to the Commandant General and any such member aggrieved by an order of the Commandant General may appeal against such order to the State Government, within thirty days of the date on which he was served with notice of such order. The Commandant General or the State Government as the case may be, may pass such order as he or it thinks fit.

(5) The Commandant General or the State Government may at any time call for and examine the record of any order passed by the Commandant or Commandant General, respectively, under sub-section (1) or (2) for the purpose of satisfying himself or itself as to the legality or propriety of such order passed by the Commandant or the Commandant General, as the case may be, and may pass such order with reference thereto as he or it thinks fit.

(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]

(6) Every order if no appeal is made therefrom as hereinbefore provided and every order passed in appeal or revision under this section shall be final.

(7) Any fine imposed under this section may be recovered in the manner provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Central Act V of 1898), for the recovery of fines imposed by a Court as if such fine were imposed by a Court.

(8) Any punishment inflicted on a member of the Home Guards under this section shall be in addition to the penalty to which such member is liable under section 9 or any other law for the time being in force."

7. Section 8 of the Act of 1963 mandates that in case a person

(volunteer) is dismissed as a member of Home Guards, then the

Commandant General or the commandant shall pass a reasoned

order after putting a note of enquiry made and after giving a

reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent official in his

defence.

8. We find that all the three requirements of Section 8(3) of the

Act of 1963 have been fully complied with by the respondents in

the present case. Learned Single Bench has taken note of the

enquiry held in the matter by recording statements of the

prosecution witness, a reasonable opportunity of hearing having

been given to the appellant to defend his case and a reasoned