STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. versus AKSHA Y ARUTLAL THAKKAR

Citation: [2006] 1 S.C.R. 439 · Decided: 17-01-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' "· 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
AKSHA Y ARUTLAL THAKKAR 
JANUARY 17, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
y 
Service law: 
Bombay Home Guards Act, 1947-Section 2, 68(1-A); Bombay Home c 
Guards Rules, 1953. Rules 2(2), 2(3); Government Resolution No. HGD/10781 
5355/F dated 3. 9.1979-Notiftcation dated 7.4.1993-Disengagement or 
termination of :-ervice of Home Guards and Home Guard Commandants-
legality of-Held, legal as their activities were in violation of Guidelines 
contained in Notification dated 7.4.1993. 
, 
D 
~ 
The respondents were appointed as Home guards and Home Guard 
Commandants. The Rules for their appointment are contained in 
notification dated. 17.4.1993. In terms of said Notification, a Taluka heme 
guard officer is entitled to be promoted as District Commandant, which 
is an honorary post. When selected by selection committee he is required 
to give an undertaking that he will not indulge in politics or communal E 
activity. Respondents were found to be indulging in prohibited activities. 
~, 
The question which has arisen in these appeals is whether the orders 
of disengagement of the respondents were without legal sanction. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: Guidelines 4 and 5 contained in Notification dated 17.4.1993 
are relevant for the purpose of this case. Guideline 5 makes it clear that 
only a person who rendered services for a particular period as Taluka 
Home Guards Officer is eligible for appointment as District commandant. 
The post of District Commandant is honorary post. However, it is G 
' 
equivalent to Gazetted Officer, Class-I and the appointment is to be made 
-i 
by a Selection Committee consisting of the designated officers. It is found 
' 
that in terms of guideline 4, an undertaking is given that the person 
selected is not be to member of the political party and shall not be led b'y 
439 
H 
440 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2006] I S.C.R. 
A any communal institute or political party, nor shall he involve in any 
political or communal activities. As the authorities found that the 
respondents were in fact acting in variance with the undertaking given, 
their disengagement was felt necessary. The services rendered by the 
respondents were essentially honorary, therefore, no civil consequences 
B were involved. Section 68(1-A) empowers the Commandant to discharge 
any member of Home Guards at any time if in the opinion of the 
commandant the services of such member are no longer required. The 
provision does necessarily refer to the discharge of a member from the 
Home Guards. The respondents in the instant case were not sought to be 
discharged as members of the Home Guards. Under the Notification in 
C question, the discharge was from duties as District Commandant, Home 
Guards. (445-G-H; 446-A-C-D( 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jade) a and Anr. v. Stale of Gujarat (1995) 5 
sec 302, referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2456of1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.7.1997 of the High Court of 
Gujarat in Letters Patent Appeal No. 549/97 in S.C.A. No. 9512/96. 
WITH 
Civial Appeal Nos. 544-553 of 2006. 
Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Ms. Pinky Behra for the Appellants. 
Amar Dave, Mrs. Sheela Goel, Nikhil Goel, Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Chand 
Kiran and V.K. Burman for the Respondent(s). 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ARIJIT PASA Y AT, J. Leave granted in SLP(C) Nos. I 0865-10874 of 
1998. 
These appeals are directed against judgments rendered by different 
Division Benches of the Gujarat High Court holding that the orders of 
disengagement of the respondents who were working as Home Guards and 
Home Guards Commandants were without legal sanction. The orders of 
engagement of the respondents were passed in purported exercise of powers 
conferred under Section 2 of the Bombay Home Guards Act. 1947 (in short 
I 
' 
,i 
F 
~ 
\ 
~\ 
STATE OF GUJARAT". AKSHAY AMRUTLAL THAKKAR[PASAYAT,J.l 
441 
the 'Act'). Subsequently being of the view that the respondents' activities A 
were in violation of the guidelines contained in Government Re_solution No. 
HGD/1078/5355/F dated 3.9.1997 of the Home Department, the orders of 
disengagement were passed. Akshay Amruttal Thakkar-the respondent in Civil 
Appeal No. 2456 of 1998 filed a writ application challenging the order of 
disengagement which was dismissed by learned Single Judge. The Letters B 
Patent Appeal filed by him was allowed. The respondents in the connected 
Civil
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.