HEMANT YOGI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order dtd. 27/1/2026, whereby he has been discharged from service on account of filing of challan in a criminal case against him.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Home Guard Sainik and was posted in the office of District Commandant, Guna. An FIR was registered against him at the instance of his wife for offences punishable under Ss. 85, 296, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS and Sec. 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The FIR was registered on 10/10/2024. As required under Rule 23(f) of the M.P. Home Guard Rules, 2016, the petitioner intimated about the registration of FIR to respondent no.3 vide communication dtd. 12/10/2024 and further on 29/9/2025.

(3.) A show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 16/1/2026 asking him to show-cause as to why action under Rule 27(2)(f) of the Rules of 2016 be not taken against him. He was asked to furnish his reply within three days. The petitioner submitted his reply on 20/1/2026, thereby informing about the circumstances in which, based upon certain matrimonial disputes, the FIR has been lodged against him. Thereafter, the impugned order was passed on 27/1/2026, whereby the petitioner has been discharged from service. The order also states that the petitioner can prefer an appeal under Rule 26 of the Rules of 2016 within 30 days before the Commandant, Home Guards, Gwalior and Chambal Division. Challenging this order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.