Court’s Decision
The Manipur High Court set aside the discharge orders dated 30.06.2022 issued against the petitioners, who were Divisional Commanders in the Manipur Home Guards, and directed their reinstatement with full service benefits, holding that the discharge was in violation of Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989 and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996 as no charges were framed, and no reasonable opportunity of hearing was given. The Court, however, granted liberty to the authorities to initiate appropriate proceedings as per law if they desired.
Facts
The petitioners, appointed in the Manipur Home Guards between 1982-1996 and promoted to Divisional Commanders, were issued show-cause notices on 23.06.2022 for alleged illegal collection of money from Home Guard personnel based on an enquiry report dated 16.06.2022 by a committee led by senior police officers. The petitioners denied the allegations in their replies dated 25.06.2022 and requested a copy of the enquiry report, which was not provided. On 29.06.2022, approval was given by the Additional DGP (HG) for their discharge, and on 30.06.2022, they were removed from service. Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions seeking reinstatement with consequential benefits.
Issues
- Whether discharge orders passed without framing charges and without providing reasonable opportunity to defend violated statutory and natural justice principles.
- Whether the discharge orders could be sustained based solely on an enquiry report allegedly confirming misconduct.
- Whether reinstatement with full benefits was warranted, with liberty to the State to initiate proceedings in accordance with law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners argued:
- The discharge orders violated Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, which require an enquiry, framing of charges, recording of reasons, and providing reasonable opportunity of hearing.
- The alleged enquiry was held without furnishing the report or relevant documents to the petitioners, and signatures on statements were forcibly obtained in the presence of senior officers.
- They relied on:
- Amar Kumar v. State of Bihar (2023) (termination without enquiry is illegal),
- Jaswant Singh v. State of MP (2002) (cancellation of appointment without hearing is improper),
- Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) (dismissal of Home Guard without following procedure is illegal),
- Union of India v. Madhusudan Prasad (2004) (termination without notice entitles the employee to reinstatement with back wages).
- They sought reinstatement with full service benefits, citing Md. Amir Khan v. State of Manipur (2024) where striking off a Home Guard’s name without enquiry was set aside.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued:
- An enquiry was conducted under the IGP’s leadership with 118 witnesses examined, confirming illegal money collection by the petitioners, who admitted the same in their statements.
- Show-cause notices were issued, and replies were considered before passing the discharge orders under Section 11 of the Act.
- The discharge was lawful, and there was no violation of natural justice since opportunities to respond were provided.
Analysis of the Law
The Court examined:
- Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989 requires an enquiry, framing of charges, recording reasons, and reasonable opportunity to be heard before passing discharge orders for misconduct.
- Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996 mandates satisfaction of the authority regarding misconduct and the need for procedural compliance before discharge.
A. Principles of natural justice as reaffirmed in Udit Narayan Singh v. Board of Revenue (1963) (hearing mandatory even if statute silent). - Precedents including:
- Amar Kumar (2023),
- Davinder Singh (2010),
- Madhusudan Prasad (2004).
Precedent Analysis
- Amar Kumar (2023) – Termination without enquiry and opportunity is illegal.
- Davinder Singh (2010) – Stigmatic dismissal without due procedure violates law.
- Madhusudan Prasad (2004) – Termination without notice entitles reinstatement with benefits.
- Md. Amir Khan (2024) – Discharge without enquiry under similar provisions set aside.
These cases guided the High Court in ensuring procedural compliance for Home Guard dismissals.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found:
- The enquiry committee’s report did not recommend discharge; it only suggested administrative measures.
- The discharge orders did not indicate consideration of the petitioners’ replies, nor was any charge framed, violating Section 11(4) and Rule 9.
- Even if the enquiry report existed, denying the petitioners access to it breached natural justice.
- The statutory and procedural violations rendered the discharge orders illegal, warranting reinstatement.
- The State was granted liberty to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings in accordance with law if it desired.
Conclusion
- The High Court quashed the discharge orders dated 30.06.2022 and directed reinstatement of the petitioners with full service benefits.
- Liberty was granted to the State to initiate fresh proceedings as per law if desired.
- Clarified that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the alleged misconduct.
Implications
- Reinforces mandatory compliance with statutory procedure before punitive action against Home Guard personnel.
- Confirms natural justice and hearing are non-negotiable even in administrative actions.
- Ensures employees cannot be dismissed on enquiry reports alone without procedural safeguards.
Short Note on Referred Cases
- Amar Kumar (2023) – Termination without enquiry is illegal.
- Davinder Singh (2010) – Stigmatic dismissal without due procedure is invalid.
- Madhusudan Prasad (2004) – Entitles back wages for illegal termination.
- Md. Amir Khan (2024) – Discharge without enquiry under Home Guards Act quashed.
These cases anchored the High Court’s reasoning.
FAQs
- Can Home Guards be discharged without enquiry under the Manipur Home Guards Act?
No, discharge requires a full enquiry, framing of charges, and a reasonable hearing under Section 11(4) of the Act.
- What did the Manipur High Court decide regarding the discharge of Home Guards for alleged misconduct?
The Court set aside the discharge orders due to violation of statutory procedure and directed reinstatement with full benefits.
- Can the State take fresh action after reinstatement in such cases?
Yes, the State can initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings as per law, ensuring compliance with due process.