Devendra Kumar Arora, J. - (1.) BY means of present writ petition, the Petitioners pray for a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of orders dated 26.2.2010, passed by opposite party No. 3, as contained in Annexures No. 1 & 2 to the writ petition. Petitioners further pray for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the Petitioners to work on the post of Home Guards and pay them honorarium in accordance with law, each and every month.
(2.) FACTS of the case, in nutshell, are that Petitioners are Home Guards, appointed in the year 1998 and 1987, respectively and they were kept in Reserve Police Line (Traffic) where they were performing their duties under the instructions of Traffic Inspector and Traffic Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to as 'T.S.I'). On 06.2.2010, when Petitioner No. 1 under the instructions of T.S.I. namely, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Gautam had gone to Loco Crossing for checking of the vehicles and Petitioner No. 2 who was waiting for a vehicle to go to his residence after duty, Traffic Inspector (hereinafter referred to T.I.) namely, Sri Dev Narain Yadav came there and asked the reason of presence of both the Petitioners with T.S.I.. The Petitioners explained him the reason of their presence but without verifying the fact from the T.S.I. on duty, the T.I. conveyed the message on wireless to the concerned authorities about the alleged unauthorised checking of the vehicles by the Petitioners. On 9.2.2010 the Petitioners were given a notice (Annexure No. 3) as to why they may not be ousted from service for their unauthorised act of checking of the vehicles. The Petitioners submitted their reply to the opposite party No. 3 on 15.2.2010 and denied the allegations made against them. The opposite party No. 3 passed the impugned orders dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure No. 1) in violation of principles of natural justice by which Petitioners were ousted from service on the ground that they did not submit any reply to the notice dated 09.2.2010. Submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that the reply submitted by the Petitioner No. 1 was duly received by the office of opposite party No. 3 whereas no receiving of the reply submitted by the Petitioner No. 2 was given by the office of concerned opposite party. Further submission is that no opportunity of hearing or show cause notice has been given to the Petitioners and the impugned orders have been passed without any enquiry and in utter violation of principles of natural justice. After having knowledge of the impugned orders dated 26.2.2010, the Petitioners made representation on 04.3.2010 (Annexure No. 6) for initiating an enquiry in the matter on which the opposite party No. 2 directed the S.P. Traffic to make an enquiry into the matter and, as such, an enquiry was made by the Circle Officer, Traffic. On enquiry, it was found that the Petitioners were not involved in any illegal act and report was submitted before the opposite party No. 3 through Addl. S.P. Traffic on 09.4.2010 (Annexure No. 7). After submission of report dated 09.4.2010, the Petitioners again made representations to the opposite party No. 3 for reinstatement of their services but nothing has been done so far. Since Petitioners are honorarium paid employees, they are at the verge of starvation due to their termination from service. Being aggrieved, Petitioners have approached this Court.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon a decision reported in : 1998 (2) UPLBEC 1484, Suraj Prasad Tiwari v. Zila Commandant Homeguard, Hamirpur in which it has been held that a Company Commander of Homeguards holds a civil post and is entitled to protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As such, Petitioners being Homeguards are also entitled to get protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.;