Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Jawaharlal vs State Of Rajasthan … on 18 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2023
Jawaharlal S/o Late Ved Prakash, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste
Kumar, Resident Of Member No. 212, Boarder Home Guard,
Bikaner 12 Kyd, Khajuwala, District- Bikaner Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.
2. The Commissioner, Home Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.
3. The Director General, Home Defence, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The Deputy General Commandant, Home Defence, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shankar Singh Rajpurohit.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for
Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
18/02/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated
08.02.2023 passed by learned Single Bench in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.5955/2018 (Jawaharlal V/s State of Raj. &
Ors.); whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant has
been dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in pursuance
of the directions issued by the learned Single Bench vide order
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:35:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]
dated 15.01.2018 while allowing the writ petition being S.B.Civil
Writ Petition No.5483/2017 (Jawahar Lal vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)
filed by the appellant, a fresh enquiry was conducted by the
respondents, however, in the said enquiry, the appellant was not
allowed to cross-examine the witnesses, who deposed before the
Inquiry Officer. He further submits that the copies of the
statements of the witnesses who deposed before the Inquiry
Officer have also not been supplied to the appellant, therefore, no
proper opportunity to defend his case was granted by the Inquiry
Officer which is in violation of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution
of India as also against the principles of natural justice. Learned
counsel submits that as per Section 8 (3) of Rajasthan Home
Guards Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1963’), the
respondent- Commandant/Commandant General was under an
obligation to decide the disciplinary case in accordance with the
provisions of Section 8 of the Act of 1963 and therefore, the
respondents have committed an error and illegality while passing
the order dated 09.04.2018. Learned counsel submits that these
very important aspects of the matter were lost sight by the
learned Single Bench, while deciding the writ petition filed by the
appellant and therefore, committed an error in passing the order
dated 08.02.2023. He, therefore, prays that the appeal filed by
the appellant may be allowed while quashing and setting aside the
order dated 08.02.2023 passed by learned Single Bench.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the appellant. He submits that the learned Single Bench has
taken note of position of law in the shape of Section 8 of the Act
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:35:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]
of 1963, which mandates that the respondents are required to
pass an order giving reasons with a note of enquiry made on the
subject. He further submits that it is mandated under the
aforesaid provision to afford an opportunity of hearing to the
person concerned in defence. Learned counsel submits that to
comply with the mandate of Section 8 (3) of the Act of 1963, the
respondents have conducted a fresh enquiry, in which statements
of number of witnesses have been recorded and after giving a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant, a detailed and
reasoned order has been passed. Learned counsel, therefore,
submits that the order passed by the respondents on 09.04.2018
is just, proper and correct. He submits that the learned Single
Bench has taken note of the detailed enquiry conducted by the
respondents and letter dated 18.03.2018 written to the Director
General, Home Guards, Rajasthan. He submits that there is no
infirmity in the impugned order passed by learned Single Bench.
He prays that the order passed by learned Single Judge does not
call for any interference by this court and therefore, the appeal
filed by the appellant may be dismissed.
5. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and
gone through the relevant record of the case.
6. Section 8 of the Act of 1963 clearly mandates three
conditions, if a volunteer is dismissed from service. For brevity,
section 8 of the Act of 1963 is reproduced as under:-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:35:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]“8. Punishment of members for neglect of duty
etc.,-
(1) The Commandant General shall have the authority
to suspend, reduce or dismiss or fine, to an amount
not exceeding fifty rupees, any member of the Home
Guards, under his control, if such member, without
reasonable cause, on being called out under section 4
neglects or refuses to obey such order or to discharge
his functions and duties as a member of Home Guards
or to obey any lawful order or direction given to him
for the performance of his functions and duties or is
guilty of any breach of discipline or misconduct. The
commandant shall also have the authority to dismiss
any member of the Home Guards on the ground of
conduct which has led to his conviction for the
commission of an offence involving moral turpitude or
an offence against this Act. The Commandant General
shall have the like authority in respect of any member
of the Home Guards appointed to a post under his
immediate control.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the
Commandant shall have the authority to discharge any
member of the Home Guards at any time subject to
such conditions as may be prescribed if, in the opinion
of the Commandant, the services of such member are
no longer required. The Commandant General shall
have the like authority in respect of any member of the
Home Guards appointed to a post under his immediate
control.
(3)When the Commandant General or the
Commandant passes an order for suspending,
reducing, dismissing or fining any member of the
Home Guards under sub-section (1), he shall record
such order or cause the same to be recorded, together
with the reasons therefore and a note of the inquiry
made, in writing, and no such order shall be passed by
the Commandant General or the Commandant unless
the person concerned is given an opportunity to be
heard in his defence.
(4) Any member of the Home Guards aggrieved by an
order of the Commandant may appeal against such
order to the Commandant General and any such
member aggrieved by an order of the Commandant
General may appeal against such order to the State
Government, within thirty days of the date on which he
was served with notice of such order. The Commandant
General or the State Government as the case may be,
may pass such order as he or it thinks fit.
(5) The Commandant General or the State Government
may at any time call for and examine the record of any
order passed by the Commandant or Commandant
General, respectively, under sub-section (1) or (2) for
the purpose of satisfying himself or itself as to the
legality or propriety of such order passed by the
Commandant or the Commandant General, as the case
may be, and may pass such order with reference
thereto as he or it thinks fit.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:35:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]
(6) Every order if no appeal is made therefrom as
hereinbefore provided and every order passed in
appeal or revision under this section shall be final.
(7) Any fine imposed under this section may be
recovered in the manner provided by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Central Act V of 1898), for
the recovery of fines imposed by a Court as if such fine
were imposed by a Court.
(8) Any punishment inflicted on a member of the Home
Guards under this section shall be in addition to the
penalty to which such member is liable under section 9
or any other law for the time being in force.”
7. Section 8 of the Act of 1963 mandates that in case a person
(volunteer) is dismissed as a member of Home Guards, then the
Commandant General or the commandant shall pass a reasoned
order after putting a note of enquiry made and after giving a
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the delinquent official in his
defence.
8. We find that all the three requirements of Section 8(3) of the
Act of 1963 have been fully complied with by the respondents in
the present case. Learned Single Bench has taken note of the
enquiry held in the matter by recording statements of the
prosecution witness, a reasonable opportunity of hearing having
been given to the appellant to defend his case and a reasoned
order having been passed in the present case recording the
delinquency of the appellant.
9. In the considered opinion of this court, no illegality has been
committed by the respondents in passing the order impugned in
the writ petition as the same has been passed in due compliance
of Section 8 (3) of the Act of 1963 after proper compliance of the
principles of natural justice and the learned Single Bench too has
not committed any illegality in upholding the order passed by the
respondents.
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:35:45 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9063-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-357/2023]
10. In view of discussions made above, we find no merit in the
appeal filed by the appellant. Consequently, the same is
dismissed.
11. Stay application as well as other pending Misc. applications,
if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
12-AnilSingh/-
(Uploaded on 24/02/2026 at 01:55:46 PM)
(Downloaded on 24/02/2026 at 08:35:45 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
