R. BHATTACHARYYA, J. ( 1 ) THE instant Writ application is aimed at, inter alia, praying for issuance of a Writ of, or in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to cancel, withdraw, revoke and to fore bear from giving any effect to the impugned order of demobilisation of the respondent No. 2 commanding him to allot duties to the petitioners alongwith ancillary prayers for certiorari and for other consequential reliefs. ( 2 ) THE sensitive facts of the Writ application unfold the lone voyage of the petitioners in quest of natural justice, despite the loyal service rendered by them as Home Guard under the Magra Police Station, Dist. Haughty. They fell prey to the whims, caprices and arbitrary action of the authorities where repeated representations by the petitioners craving for allotment of duties crowned no success, though packed with documents revealing the allotment of duties in their favour issued by the authorities. Even the letter of the D. M. Hooghly, under Memo No. 959 (20)G dated 24. 4. and4, directing the petitioners to approach the Deputy Magistrate at his chamber on 14. 5. and4, for relief bore no result except the vain promises. ( 3 ) THE authorities, on hearing the representations put up by the parties from time to time, began, with the promises and hopes which faded away by the colossal inaction of them. 3a. There was complete rupture of administrative justice, as the colleagues of the petitioners, though junior to them, after the order of demobilisation, were retained by the authorities in different districts. The authorities were not the respectors of the Home Guard Rules. The long silence of the authorities generated suspicion which ripened into belief that punishment in the shape of dismissal had been inflicted on them unaided by any order of reduction of the strength of the Home Guard. Far less, no administrative reasons found to be predominant to score through the claim for their demobilisation. The order of demobilisation passed by the authorities bore no fibre of administrative justice as there was a complete butchery on natural justice. ( 4 ) THOUGH the petitioners were taken in as Home Guards, who were subsequently, demobilised, yet they could not guard their homes for livelihood of the members of the family who were dependent on them. The order of demobilisation passed by the authorities bore no fibre of administrative justice as there was a complete butchery on natural justice. ( 4 ) THOUGH the petitioners were taken in as Home Guards, who were subsequently, demobilised, yet they could not guard their homes for livelihood of the members of the family who were dependent on them. ( 5 ) THE order of demobilisation cannot acquire the feature of permanence as it offended the principle of natural justice. The period of demobilisation, in the backdrop of the deplorable state of affairs cannot rob their livelihood who must be treated to be on duty entitling them to full pecuniary benefits. The order of demobilisation is a contrivance to remove them from service. The demand justice could not fetch any result and the petitioners were kept however between hope and despondency. Accordingly, the instant Writ application is for desired relief. ( 6 ) TO bolt the claim of the petitioners, the respondents have asserted that the claim is unenforceable as the Writ petitioners were suffering from culpable delay and dereliction of duty. The facts have been polluted and the representations talked by them in their Writ applications were more imaginary than real. The order of demobilisation, accordingly, is water and airtight which is not liable to be displaced by any order-of mobilisation. ( 7 ) THE lone question that survives for decision of the Court is as to whether the order of demobilisation is devoid of fair play and justice. ( 8 ) TO embark on an enquiry about the pith and substance of the claim, the case of both the petitioners, soliciting relief, can be broadly classified into two. ( 9 ) I have been intensely addressed by the learned Counsels for the parties that the respective claims of the petitioners, if read in isolation or in conjunction with each other, will manifest with a degree of precision that Paresh, the petitioner No. 1 was enrolled in the year 1962 and his colleague Bhajahari, the petitioner No. 2, was enrolled in the year 1965 in the Home Guard personnel. It is predominant for the factual exposure of the case that fidelity of the petitioners was undisputed who discharged loyal services without any least demur. It is predominant for the factual exposure of the case that fidelity of the petitioners was undisputed who discharged loyal services without any least demur. ( 10 ) THOUGH the services rendered by them filled to the brim of the superior, yet they became the scapegoats for no fault of their own. But they suffered an order of demobilisation unaided by any written order of which the respondent No. 2 was the author. To add insult to the injury, the authority never issued any written order nor reflected any reason for their 'demobilisation. The facts contained in the order of demobilisation is a canard both latently and patiently. ( 11 ) MUCH water has passed underneath the bridge when representation made by the petitioners galored. Petitioners attended the call of the respondents for consideration of their cases which did not fetch any result. Even, they attended the chamber of the Dy. Magistrate on 14. 5. 84, as directed by the D. M. by Memo No. 959 (20g) dated 25. 4. 1984, in vain. ( 12 ) THERE was complete wane of hope when the authorities attached featherweight to their representations and took the passive role. They were scepticle about the success of their representations. ( 13 ) RETURNING to examine the viability of the claim of the petitioners, there is no shred of obscurity that the authorities without rhyme or reason flouted natural justice being completely oblivious of the untrammeled allegations about the royal services, rendered by them in course of allotment of their duties. ( 14 ) THE tangible facts that silently crept in, in the petition for relief did not show even remotely any act done by the petitioners adverse to the Home Guard Rules by which they were governed. Nor there is any significant material on record that they were guilty of misconduct, or they ever suffered from culpable negligence. The misconduct as spoken to by the respondents in their affidavit-in-opposition is a lullaby and nothing more than an allegation on the plain paper without any substance behind them. ( 15 ) THE valuable right accrued and enjoyed by the petitioner has been snapped of by an exparte allegation, the truth or otherwise of such allegation was not allowed to be traversed by the petitioners before taking any penal action. ( 15 ) THE valuable right accrued and enjoyed by the petitioner has been snapped of by an exparte allegation, the truth or otherwise of such allegation was not allowed to be traversed by the petitioners before taking any penal action. ( 16 ) I find, when I connive at Annexure 'x' and 'y' appended to the petition, where serious allegations rendered with infamy were levelled against the petitioners. Alas ! they were not afforded with any opportunity to explain the incriminating conduct before the sword of Democles fell on them. I have rummaged the Annexures 'x' and 'y' times without number, alongwith other Annexures, for which, I could not render any account. But the contents of the Annexures X' and 'y' do not fuel the claim of the respondents as there was no investigation of the allegations; nor the truth or otherwise of the allegations do not appear to have been cultured in the laboratory of the disciplinary proceedings for a result in favour of the respondents. More so, it is noteworthy that the truth had been pumped out from them and refilled with falsehoods. Undoubtedly, the scars in the service career of the petitioner cannot and should not gain ground at 'audi alteram partem'. ( 17 ) THE mode and manner of discharge of the petitioners from the Home Guard Organisation when not founded on disciplinary proceedings cannot insure the accuracy of the exparte allegations having an adverse consequence on the petitioners. It is an axiomatic truth, since there are legions of judicial precedents, that no person should be punished or condemned unheard. One of the sources of human rights was the Megna Carta which was acknowledged by the King John in Runnemade in the year 1215 which for the evolution of the society at large developed with the progress of the modern jurisprudence. The rule of fair hearing never lost its head between the two wars rather the rule of fair hearing has received international recognition. The rule of fair hearing never lost its head between the two wars rather the rule of fair hearing has received international recognition. The universal declaration of human rights adopted by the general assembly of the United Nations in 1948 in its Article 10 is as under: everyone is entitled to a fair public hearing by an independent tribunal in the determination of his rights and obligations are frequently passed by statutory bodies which included amongst other quasi judicial and appellate authorities offending the principle of natural justice in so far as such orders had been brought about by the authority concerned without granting to the aggrieved person, who would be adversely affected by the order, a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. ( 18 ) IT had been found more often than not when the orders passed by such authority founded on arbitrary action become susceptible to judicial scrutiny where to shield their own fault, the authorities cultivate the rickety plea that hardly any difference could be made as to whether an opportunity-of hearing is given or not. Natural justice does not admit such stand and explodes the plea. ( 19 ) THE Supreme Court in S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 , has not accepted the line of reasoning adopted by the authorities to invalidate the order passed by them in the name of judicial. This view has not been disturbed by the Supreme Court, but has been reaffirmed and reiterated in all subsequent decisions among which Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, AIR 1986 SC 180 is one of them. ( 20 ) THE decision in R. B. Sriram Durga Prosad and Fatechand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission, AIR 1989 SC 1038 falls in line with the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in earlier decisions. ( 21 ) IN the above case, the Settlement Commission dismissed the claim of the aggrieved without affording the assessee with any opportunity of hearing as his request for recalling the order dated 24th of August, 1977, by which it rejected the application for settlement as it was passed without hearing the assessee. The Supreme Court did not accept the order as it violated the principles of natural justice and declared the same by the verdict of the Court as illegal when challenged. The Supreme Court did not accept the order as it violated the principles of natural justice and declared the same by the verdict of the Court as illegal when challenged. ( 22 ) THE claim of the petitioners verges squarely and fairly on natural justice as their claim was annihilated without restoring to any enquiry which is a sine qua non for removal, termination or suspension concerning an aggrieved. There is no logic of the order for demobilisation. The order of demobilisation is not an one way traffic as it cannot make any encroachment on natural justice. It cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience. ( 23 ) IN the light of the above, I cannot help quashing the impugned order of dismissal being Annexures 'x' and 'y' to the Writ Application and direct the respondents to forebear from giving my effect to the impugned order of demobilisation. ( 24 ) LET a writ of certiorari issue, quashing the Annexures 'x' and 'y' to the Writ application. Let a Writ of mandamus also issue commanding the respondents to forebear from giving any effect to the same. ( 25 ) THE order of discharge, therefore, of the petitioners from the Home Guard Organisations is illegal and void. ( 26 ) A further argument has been advanced by the learned Counsels for the petitioners that they are entitled to pecuniary benefits for the unemployment forced upon them. The profile of the claim is that, that for absence of allotment and discharge of duties as Home Guard, the petitioners were deprived of their legitimate dues in the shape of money, for which, they should be compensated. The period spent by them in absence of allotment and discharge of duties should be treated as the period spent by them on duties is an argument ill founded. It keeps no profile not to speak of any key. It is manifest that the petitioners, as Home Guards, are entitled to pecuniary benefits when duties are allotted to them followed by factual discharge of services. It will be a pure fiction to claim for such relief when in fact no duty was allotted to them. The similar view has been taken by. His Lordships, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Banerjee, in Civil Order No. 10329 (W) of 1988. A xerox copy of which is on record to the notice of the respondents. It will be a pure fiction to claim for such relief when in fact no duty was allotted to them. The similar view has been taken by. His Lordships, the Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. P. Banerjee, in Civil Order No. 10329 (W) of 1988. A xerox copy of which is on record to the notice of the respondents. ( 27 ) I have been intimated by the learned Counsels for the parties that no appeal had been preferred by the State against the said civil order. ( 28 ) THUS, after considering the conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case, which included amongst other the right to livelihood, I set aside the order of demobilisation of the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, directing the respondents to pass order for employment and mobilisation of the petitioners as Home Guards in Hooghly District and to allot duties like other Home Guards in usual course. The writ petition, accordingly, succeeds in the manner, as indicated above. There will be no order as to costs. Petition succeeds.