SUDHANGSHU SEKHAR Vs. SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writpetitioners in the present case had been serving as Homeguards since 1975, the appointments having been given from time to time. By the impugned order, the services of the petitioners have been dispensed with. From the materials, produced on behalf of the respondents, it appears that such order of discharge has been passed in compliance with recommendation of the Vigilance Commission. It further appears that the allegations, which appeared to form the basis of such recommendations, were already subject matters of an abortive police investigation in G. R. No. 771 of 1980, which ended in an order, dated 17.3.1982, in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners were given allotted duties thereafter since September 1982. The discharging authority claims to have passed the impugned order of discharge in purported compliance with Rule. 9 of the West Bengal Homeguard. Rules 1962.

(2.) In my view, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on two grounds : -

(3.) Accordingly, I quash the impugned order of discharge, which is Annexure 'C' to the writ application, and direct the respondents to forbear from giving effect to the same. Let a writ of Certiorari issue, quashing Annexure 'C' to the writ application. Let a writ of Mandamus also issue, commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the same.