Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) IN the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia prayed for quashing the letter dated 15.7.2009 (Annexure -3) passed by the respondent No. 4, District Commandant, Homeguard, at Dhanbad whereby the services of the petitioners have been terminated and further prayer is for direction to the respondents for reinstate them in their former services. The factual matrix of the case in a nutshell is that the petitioners were appointed as Constables of the Homeguard on different dates between the year 1979 to 1989 and have rendered their services without any blemishes. In pursuance to the command the petitioners were deputed to the office of the Manager, B.S.N.L., Purana Bazar, for the security of the office vide Command dated 8.5.2009, they reported in that office and started discharging their duty in accordance with the requirement of the Manager, B.S.N.L., as evident from Annexure -1 to the writ application. In course of duties, it appears from the impugned order that due to death of one businessman namely, Bihari Lal Choudhary allegations have been made for dereliction of duty and the services of the petitioners have been terminated vide order dated 15.7.2009 as evident from Annexure -3 to the writ application. Being aggrieved by the impugned order (Annexure -3), the petitioners submitted representation vide Annexure -4 to the writ application, ventilations (sic) their grievances.
(2.) LEFT with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, the petitioners have filed this writ application invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances. Per contra a counter -affidavit has been filed by the respondents repelling the contentions made in the writ application. In the counter -affidavit, it has been submitted that the petitioners were deputed with BSNL Office, Purana Bazar on 24.6.2009 and at around 10:30 P.M. one Behari Lal Choudhary was murdered by the miscreants in front of BSNL Office and the family members of Behari Lal Choudhary kept on shouting but the petitioners did not take any preventive measures, nor did they come out from BSNL premises, showing gross negligence in their duty and also their cowardice behavior. It has been further stated that Sergeant Major enquired from the petitioners on aforesaid issues but they were giving false excuses and accordingly, Sergeant Major gave a report to the respondents dated 26.6.2009 and the respondent recommended to respondent No. 2 for removing the petitioners from services and thereafter respondent No. 4 passed DO No. 387/09 dated 14.7.2009. On the recommendation of the respondent No. 4, the respondent No. 2 removed the petitioners from enrollment, in accordance with Section 9(b) and (c) of the Jharkhand Home Guards Act, 2005. Accordingly, prayer has been made in the counter -affidavit for dismissal of writ application.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order is not legally sustainable because adequate opportunity to the petitioners prior to termination has not been afforded rendering the impugned order unsustainable in the eye of law, since the impugned order smacks of stigma the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed prior to inflicting major punishment like dismissal from services. That apart the petitioners have been subjected to excessive or disproportionate, punishment, keeping in view the gravity of the charges. The impugned order of punishment would prick the conscience of the Court. Accordingly, the impugned order under Annexure -3 being legally unsustainable, is liable to be quashed.;