IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 12631 of 2008. Decided on: 18.5.2011. ___________________________________________________________ Dinesh Kumar. … Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another. … Respondents. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner : Mr. Mehar Chand, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayers vide para 7 (i) and (ii):- (i) That the aforesaid illegal order of termination of services of applicant dated 7.10.2004 along with the order of appellate authority dated 14.3.2005 be declared null and void. (ii) That after declaring as such the respondents be directed to re-instate the services of the applicant.” 2. In reply, the respondents have taken the following stand vide para 1 of the preliminary submissions:- “1. The present O.A. is not maintainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed. The applicant had earlier filed an O.A.(M) No. 19/2005 before this Hon’ble Tribunal and as the applicant had not filed any appeal under the Statute i.e. H.P. Home Guards Act, 1968 and Rules 1971, copies of which are annexed as Annexure R-I & R-II, this Hon’ble Tribunal 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 had allowed the request of counsel for the applicant to withdraw the original application with liberty to file fresh one on the same cause of action. The appeal made by the applicant (Annexure R-III) against the order of his dismissal dated 7.10.2004 to the appellate authority i.e. Commandant General Home Guards, has also been rejected vide order dated 14.3.2005 (Annexure PB). Under Section 12 (3) of the H.P. Home Guards Act, an appeal against the order of the Commandant General lies with the Government provided that the appeal is made within thirty days of the date on which he was served with such order. Thus as the applicant has not any appeal to the Government, this remedy is still available to him before he can file an application before the Hon’ble Tribunal. Moreover, the applicant discharged as Home Guard volunteer by the Commandant Home Guard, Mandi, on the basis of inquiry conducted by Battalion Admn. Officer as per the provisions of the Home Guards Act & Rules as the applicant was involved in the serious charge of extorting money from one Sh. Vivek Guleria. Hence the order of discharge against the applicant is legal and sustainable in eye of the law. Therefore, the present O.A. is liable to be dismissed.” 3. The petitioner was engaged by the respondents as a Home Guard Volunteer in the year 2002. However, later on his services were terminated vide office order dated 8.10.2004, Annexure PA (English translation Annexure PA/I), text whereof is as under:- 3 “According to the statement of the delinquent it has come to the notice that on 10.8.2004 & 17.8.2004 during night hours at Purani Mandi when the delinquent was on duty at that time the aforesaid Home Guard threatened one Vivek Guleria s/o Dr. V.C. Guleria and taken the bribery in the shape of amount. The Incharge Officer and Company Commander Operation, investigated the matter and found that Home Guard 6/5-56 Dinesh Kumar in connivance with Vinod Kumar Home Guard No. 6/5- 77 at about 2 pm when Vivek Guleria was going to his house at Jail Road then he was threatened and after checking snatched Rs. 1400/- and one knife forcibly. Dinesh Kumar feel apology to this effect and admitted the aforesaid occurrence that Home Guard 6/5-77 Vinod Kumar paid Rs. 150/- to him. After checking of the note book it has found that the name and address of the aforesaid is affixed on the note book, knife etc. has not been mentioned in the aforesaid note book. According to office letter No. Home/HS10/Mandi clarification/2004/2982-83 dated 28.8.2004 Dinesh Kumar served a show cause notice through this letter, reply of which has been filed by Dinesh Kumar 6/5-56 Home Guard on 13.9.2004 to this office in which he admitted that he has taken Rs. 150/- from Vinod Kumar Home Guard 6/5-77 which has been given by Vinod Kumar to Dinesh Kumar as such the aforesaid reply is not found satisfactory. As such according to the above facts, it appears that the aforesaid Dinesh Kumar Home Guard No. 6/6-56 committed an unreasonable act/bribery and misbehave and also misused the powers, according to the aforesaid acts the aforesaid Dinesh Kumar injured the reputation of the Battalion and also breach the rules of Home Guards 1971 Articles 9/1/7/G. It is, therefore, according to the above facts and according to the Home Guards Rules under 4 Article 9/1/11 the Home Guard No. 6/5-56 Dinesh Kumar has been terminated. 4. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 14.3.2005, Annexure PB. 5. The record reveals that the petitioner had admitted the allegations against him and submitted letter, Annexure R-IV, addressed to the Commandant, Home Guards, 6th Battalion, Mandi seeking pardon. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner, no case is made out for grant of the relief prayed for by him. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 7. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending application(s), if any. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. May 18, 2011. (cr)