Augustine George Masih , J. - (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing of order dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commandant General Home Guards-cum-Inspector General of Police, Union Territory Chandigarh, vide which the petitioner was discharged from the rolls of Chandigarh Home Guards Organization as his services were no longer required.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was initially enrolled as a Home Guard Volunteer on 14.02.2000 and worked as such till the date of his discharge i.e. 23.01.2014. Thereafter, he was re-enrolled as Home Guard Volunteer on 12.01.2015 and continued as such till the passing of the impugned order dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-2). During this period, his work and conduct was never adversely commented upon. She contends that a false criminal case relating to sale of liquor was registered against the petitioner being FIR No.115 dated 02.09.2016, under Section 61 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, at Police Station Kurali, for alleged recovery of 11 bottles of liquor namely 'Everyday Prestige Whiskey' for sale in Chandigarh only. 2-A. Referring to the information as has been received by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act (Annexure P-1 colly), she contends that the order of termination dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Commandant General Home Guards-cum-Inspector General of Police, Union Territory Chandigarh, is based upon the fact that the above referred to FIR had been registered against him, wherein he has been arrested. She contends that in the garb of the discharge order, services of the petitioner have been dispensed with but as a matter of fact, this amounts to dismissal from service and thus, would be hit by Rule 27 of the Punjab Home Guards Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as '1963 Rules'), which are applicable to the Chandigarh Home Guards. She contends that because of the above fact, the termination of the petitioner had been ordered. She further contends that the order of discharge, dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P2), was never conveyed to the petitioner and therefore, he did not have an occasion to file an appeal before the Government, as provided under the Rules. Her contention is that as per Rule 27 of the 1963 Rules, prior to dismissal of a member of the Home Guards Force, reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him has been mandated, which requirement has not been complied with as the petitioner, prior to his order of discharge, has neither been given an opportunity of hearing nor any show cause notice was served on him. Her contention is that the petitioner was arrested on 02.09.2016 and remained in judicial custody till 09.09.2016. She, thus, contends that the reason for discharging the petitioner is his absence from duty, which amounts to misconduct for which the requirement of Rule 27 of 1963 Rules had to be fulfilled. Respondents have not disputed the fact that he was neither issued any show cause notice nor was he given an opportunity of being heard prior to passing of the discharge order.
(3.) Another contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR, in which the petitioner has been found to be involved, is a false case which has been foisted on him. She contends that after the trial, petitioner has been acquitted of all charges by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, vide judgment dated 25.09.2018, wherein it has clearly been recorded as a finding that the possibility of imposing a false recovery upon the petitioner could not be ruled out. In this regard, she has referred to the judgment dated 25.09.2018 (Annexure P-3). On the basis of the above, counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a criminal case, for which he cannot be held responsible and the impugned order of discharge dated 21.09.2016 (Annexure P-2) cannot sustain and deserves to be set aside.;