MALIK MD Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A batch of 42 Home Guards have filed this writ petition seeking a writ of Certiorari so as to quash their suspension/release/discharge orders issued by the Commandant, Home Guard (VA), Government of Manipur on different dates during the period spreading from 1992 to 1997. The impugned orders have been enclosed with the writ petition collectively, which have been marked as Annexure-A/1. Besides this, the petitioners are also seeking a writ of Mandamus so as to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners with all consequential benefits and back-wages.

(2.) HEARD Mr. H. S. Paonam, learned counsel for the writ petitioners at length. The respondents were represented by Shri Th. Ibohal, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate. To supplement his oral submissions the learned Govt. Advocate has also submitted written submissions. I have also perused the impugned orders and other documents filed with the writ petition. It may be mentioned here that no counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State.

(3.) SHRI H. S. Paonam, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent No. 2 has adopted the practice of discharging home guards in a routine manner on flimsy grounds with an oblique motive to replace them with new incumbents of his choice. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, although the petitioners were working as Home Guards for more than 10 years without any break or disciplinary action, they have been ousted from the job without any valid ground. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that while issuing discharge orders, the respondent No. 2 neither followed the principles of natural justice by way of giving an opportunity of hearing nor followed the statutory provision of holding enquiry. Hence, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned orders are unsustainable in law and are liable to be quashed, with consequential actions.