(1.) RULE returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of Mr. Anand Parchure, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Mujumdar, learned A.G.P. for respondent.
(2.) THE Writ Petition is directed against the impugned communication dated 26.6.2006 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mumbai in exercise of power under Clause (2) of Sub -section 2(A) of Section 2 of the Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947 whereby the service of the petitioner stands terminated after expiry of period of one month from the date on which the said notice was served on the petitioner.
(3.) MR . Parchure has vehemently argued that in the affidavits in reply filed by the respondent in the present Writ Petition, the respondent has given several reasons as to why the petitioner was unfit to continue in service as District Commandant. However, the petitioner was not issued any notice or any memo in respect of those alleged complaints by the respondent. It is contended that all the allegations made in the affidavits filed by the respondent pertaining to alleged complaints, if any, are denied by the petitioner by filing counter -affidavit dated 16.10.2006. It is submitted that if the impugned order dated 26.6.2006 is issued in view of the alleged complaints or alleged misconduct, if any, committed by the petitioner while discharging his duty as a District Commandant, in that event, it was all the more necessary for the respondents to grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing the impugned order since the alleged allegations are completely denied by the petitioner. Mr. Parchure, therefore, contended that the impugned notice/order of termination being inconsistent with the rules of natural justice cannot be sustained in law. In order to substantiate the contention, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. v. : [1978]2SCR272 .