- (1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 25.07.2007 issued by the Commandant Home Guards (VA), Manipur -respondent No. 4 releasing the petitioner from call out duty with immediate effect as his services with the Manipur Home Guards were no longer required. The petitioner was appointed as Home Guards under Section 4(1) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1966 whereafter he was by the order dated 31.08.83 promoted to the rank of Battalion Commander. It would appear that the respondent No. 4 had written the letter dated 17.07.2007 to the Inspector General of Police (Ops/HG), Government of Manipur informing that the appointment of Battalion Commandant Home Guards were to be issued by the State Home Department. However, the respondent No. 4 by issued the impugned order releasing him from call out duty.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said release order, the petitioner submitted a memorandum to the Chief Minister of Manipur for setting aside the order dated 25.07.2007 which apparently came a cropper whereupon he filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the legality of the order dated 25.07.2007. The writ petition was disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to dispose of the representation submitted by him before the Principal Secretary (Home), Government of Manipur, but by giving him the liberty to file a fresh petition, if further cause of action arose thereafter. The Director, State Vigilance Commission conducted verification and the report was submitted to the State Home Department. The report submitted by the State Vigilance Commission was apparently ignored on the ground that verification was done without proper enquiry. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached this Court again in WP(C) No. 511 of 2008 challenging the order dated 25.07.2007, and the writ petition was again disposed of by this Court on 15.12.2008 by directing the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law. The representation was subsequently rejected by the Commandant General (Home Guards), Manipur by his order dated 01.07.2009.
(3.) THE writ petition was opposed by the State respondent by contending that the petitioner was released from his service by respondent No. 4 in exercise of the power conferred upon him by Rule. Section (4) and (5) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1966 read with Rule 7 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996, which gives unfettered power to him to discharge the petitioner at any time if he is of the opinion that his services are no longer required. Reads as follows : "7. Term of Office The term of Office of a member of the Home Guards shall be 3 years. Provided that a person once appointed shall be eligible for reappointment. Provided further that the services of a member of Home Guards may be discharged at any time by the commandant or the Commandant General as the case may be, if in his opinion the services of such Home Guards are no longer required. The opinion or reasons of such authority shall be recorded in writing and a copy of which is to be furnished to the member whose services have been discharged." After hearing both Mr.Kh Tarunkumar, the learned for the petitioner and Mr._H. Devendro, the learned State counsel, it becomes clear that the sole question, which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner can be discharged from call out duty at any time by the Commandant/Commandant General only on the ground that his services are no longer required. Mr. Tarunkumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that under Rule 7 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996, though power is conferred upon the Commandant/Commandant General, as the case may be, to discharge the petitioner from called out duty if they are of the opinion that his services are no longer required, both are, nevertheless, under the obligation to record the reasons for discharging him from called out duty. It is his contention that Rule 7 in term provided that before such discharge, the Commandant/Commandant General are required to record their opinion or reasons for discharging the petitioner from called out duty. This is minimum safeguard laid down by law to protect the services of the petitioner from possible whimsical or arbitrary exercise of power by the respondent authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner reminds this Court the oft -quoted dictum that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way; it should be exercised in that manner or not at all and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. As no reason was recorded by the respondent No. 4 when issuing the impugned order, the same can not be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed.;