Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Manipur Single Bench of Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma has quashed the discharge orders issued against three personnel of the Manipur Home Guards. The Court directed the State authorities to reinstate the petitioners with full-service benefits, concluding that the discharge orders were passed in contravention of Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989 and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996. The Court held that the discharge was affected without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the petitioners a reasonable opportunity to be heard.

The Bench noted that the discharge was not recommended in the committee’s report and that the approval for discharge, which was said to be for gross misconduct, was not backed by a due process. In the absence of framed charges and an inquiry proceeding as mandated by law, the Court found the action to be arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The writ petitions were accordingly allowed with directions for reinstatement, subject to liberty reserved for the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Also Read: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Standard Chartered | Calls Case A Clear Abuse Of Law Over Escrow Dispute

The matter arose from a common order dated 30.06.2022 whereby three members of the Manipur Home Guards were discharged from service. The petitioners were Laishram Nirmal Singh, Md. Ataur Rahaman, and Laishram Lomon Singh, each of whom had been serving in various capacities within the Home Guards. They were promoted to the rank of Divisional Commander through separate orders issued in 2020, 2012, and 2017 respectively.

A show cause notice dated 23.06.2022 was issued to them by the Additional Director General of Police (HG), Government of Manipur. The notice referenced an enquiry report submitted by the Inspector General of Police (Zone-III), Manipur, which alleged the petitioners’ involvement in the illegal collection of money from Home Guard personnel. The petitioners responded on 25.06.2022 denying the allegations. Nonetheless, the Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur issued the discharge orders on 30.06.2022, citing gross misconduct.

The petitioners challenged the legality of the discharge orders by filing writ petitions, contending that they were not afforded due process. They argued that their replies to the show cause notices were not considered and that no charges were formally framed against them. Moreover, they alleged that the enquiry report was not supplied to them despite specific requests, and that their signatures were forcibly obtained.

The respondents, in their counter affidavits, claimed that the discharge orders were issued based on a proper enquiry involving the examination of 118 personnel. They stated that the petitioners admitted their role in the collection of money and that the discharge was approved accordingly. The respondents further invoked Section 11 of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989 and argued that the Commandant and the Commandant General were vested with the authority to discharge any Home Guard personnel.

The petitioners, in reply, reiterated that the enquiry process was flawed. They stated that the provisions of Section 11(4) and Rule 9 were not followed, and that the order of discharge was devoid of any consideration of their representations.

The Court observed: "It is an admitted fact that the three petitioners and another person were discharged and their names were struck off from the roll of Home Guards personnel of Manipur vide the common impugned order dated 30.06.2022." It recorded that the discharge was purportedly based on the recommendations of the Committee’s report dated 16.06.2022, which had examined 118 individuals and suggested three reforms, but did not recommend discharge.

The Court stated: "The discharge order has not considered the replies submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notices. No charge was framed against the petitioners, nor was any opportunity given to them to answer to the allegation of illegal collection of money." It further noted that Section 11(4) clearly stipulates that any such order must be preceded by a due enquiry and must record reasons. The Court held that the order was passed without adhering to this requirement.

In addressing the procedure followed, the Bench remarked: "The alleged enquiry proceedings and the discharge order violate the principles laid down in Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989 and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996." It also stated: "The statute stipulates availing of the opportunity of defending. Surprisingly, no memorandum of charge has been furnished to the petitioners and they have been discharged without affording any opportunity of presenting their case."

Referring to precedent, the petitioners cited several Supreme Court decisions including Amar Kumar v. State of Bihar (2023), Jaswant Singh v. State of MP (2002), and Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2010) to reinforce the requirement of due process in disciplinary actions. The Court noted these citations in context but ultimately concluded based on the statutory mandates.

It also took note of its own earlier order in WP(C) No. 876 of 2023, Md. Amir Khan v. State of Manipur & 2 Ors. and remarked that the present case was similarly covered as the discharge had been ordered without a proper inquiry.

The Court issued the following directions:

"This Court has no hesitation in setting aside the impugned discharge order dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur with respect to the three petitioners."

Also Read: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Parole Denial | Even A Condemned Prisoner Has Right To See His Ailing Mother | Invokes Article 226 For Humanitarian Escort

The Bench then directed: "The respondents are directed to re-instate the petitioners to their service with full-service benefits, as the discharge order was issued in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 11(4) of the Manipur Home Guards Act, 1989 and Rule 9 of the Manipur Home Guards Rules, 1996."

It added: "The respondents have liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against the petitioners as per rule, if so desired."

The judgment concluded with the following procedural directions: "Writ petitions are allowed and disposed of. Pending applications are accordingly disposed of. Interim orders stand merged with the final order."

"Return the original files to the learned Government Advocate under endorsement of due receipt."

"Send a copy of this order to the Commandant, Home Guards (VA), Manipur for information and necessary compliance."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, Senior Advocate and Ms. Kh. Maria, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. Shyam Sharma, Government Advocate and Mr. S. Niranjan, Government Advocate

Case Title: Laishram Nirmal Singh & Ors. v. State of Manipur & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 539 of 2023 with WP(C) Nos. 478, 479 & 480 of 2022

Bench: Justice A. Guneshwar Sharma