ORDER : Heard. 1. Since facts & issue involved in both the cases is similar, they are being considered and decided together by this common order. 2. The present petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who are Home Guards, being aggrieved by the dismissal orders dated 15/04/2011 Annexure P/7 (passed in respect of six petitioners in WPS No.94 of 2014) & Annexure P/8 (passed in respect of petitioner in WPS No.7089 of 2017). 3. According to the petitioners, who were working as Home Guards they were initially suspended by order dated 26/03/2011 & 27/02/2011, respectively, and show-cause notice was issued to them on 31/03/2011 Annexure P/5 & P/6, respectively. The reply was filed by the petitioners and the respondents not being satisfied with the reply terminated the services of the petitioners on 15/04/2011 without conducting any enquiry or referring the matter to the State. 4. The short question therefore falls for consideration is as to whether the services of the petitioners as Home Guard can be dispensed with by termination simplicitor. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners' services were terminated for the reason that they have formed an association namely; Home Guard Sainik Avm Parivar Kalyan Sangh with an object to provide support to the widow of the deceased Home Guard, their Children and to make them self-dependent so that they can add value to the nation. He would further submit that it was not to inculcate indiscipline in the Home Guards but the higher officers having not been satisfied with the same, issued show-cause notice and the reply though was filed the services of petitioners were terminated simplicitor without any inquiry. He would further submit that the services of the Home Guard are governed by the C.G. Home Guards Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1947) and the rules framed thereunder namely; the Chhattisgarh (Central Provinces and Berar) Home Guards Rules, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1947') and Rule 12 (6) of the Rules, 1947 purports that punishment other than reprimand, confinement to barracks or suspension cannot be imposed by the Senani or the Pradhan Senani unless it is referred to the provincial government. He placed his reliance in the case of Davinder Singh and others Vs. He placed his reliance in the case of Davinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others { (2010) 13 SCC 88 } and would submit that in such situation the termination of the petitioners under the circumstances since it is the violative of the fundamental rights, they are required to be reinstated. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents State would submit that the work of the Home Guard is for a specific purpose which needs discipline and if certain congregation of the like nature to form a society is made in the Home Guards it will destroy the discipline in force and it being the offence against the force, after giving show-cause notice and the reply having not been satisfactory, their services were terminated which is in duly compliance of the Act & Rules, 1947. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 8. The initial show-cause which is on record dated 31/03/2011 reads as under:- **fo"k; %& ftyk lsukuh dk izLrko&vuq'kklughurk gsrq lsokeqfDrA &&@@&& ftyk lsukuh uxjlsuk fcykliqj ds Kkiu Øekad@523@izf'k-@2011 fnukad 31-03-2011 }kjk vuq'kklughurk gsrq lsokeqfDr dk izLrko izkIr gqvk gSA izkIr tkudkjh vuqlkj ik;k x;k fd vki yksxks ds }kjk gksexkMZ ifjokj dY;k.k la?k dk xBu dj ftyk ,oa laHkkx ds uxj lSfudksa dks la?k dk lnL; cukus QkeZ dk forj.k dj uxj lSfudksa esa vuq'kklughurk QSykus dk dk;Z fd;k tk jgk gSA vki yksxks ds }kjk foHkkx izeq[k dh vkns'kksa dh vUns[kh dj voS/kkfud :i ls lfefr dk iath;u djk;k x;k gSA bl d`R; ds fy;s ftyk lsukuh uxj lsuk fcykliqj }kjk vkidks fuyacu fd;k x;k gSA vr% bl vuq'kklughurk iwoZd dk;Zokgh foHkkx izeq[k ds vkns'kks dh voKk] lSfudksa esa xqVckth QSykus rFkk gksexkMZ laLFkk dks uhps fn[kkus fd;s x;s d`R;ksa ds fy;s gksexkMZ fu;e 11¼1½¼[k½¼x½ vUns[kh dh vogsyuk ,oa gksexkMZ dh /kkjk 13 fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼6½ laLFkk dh lsok ls D;ksa u c[kkZLr fd;k tk,A blds fy, vkidks uSlfxZd U;k; dh n`f"V ls ,d volj fn;k tkrk gSA vki viuk Li"Vhdj.k 07 fnu ds vUnj izLrqr djsaA vkidk mRrj le; ij izkIr ugha gksus ij vuq’kklughurk ds fy, ;g ekuk tkosxk fd lsokeqfDr ds izLrko ls lger gSA ¼,l-ds-Bkdqj½ laHkkxh; lsukuh] uxjlsuk] fcykliqj** 9. The Act, 1947 provides for appointment of Officers and Section 12 postulates the powers and protection of Home Guards with reference to the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder. The Rules, 1947 have been framed in exercise of power conferred by Section 14 of the Central Provinces and Berar Home Guards Act, 1947. Rule 11 of which prescribed the offences against the force. In the instant case, since the allegation was that the petitioners have made a default in respect of Rule 11 (1) (b) & (c), the relevant part of Rule 11 (1) up till (e) is reproduced hereunder:- 11. Offences against the force.- A Nagar-Sainik (Home Guard) undergoing a course of training or performing service as required by sub-section (2) of section 7 of the Act or at an annual camp of exercise or when called out on duty under sub-rule (1) of rule 9, shall if he does any of the following acts be deemed to have committed an offence against the force:- (1) when on parade and engaged on any duty or wearing Nagar-Sainik (Home Guard) uniform, he- (a) strikes or uses or offers violence to or uses threatening or insubordinate language to or behaves with contempt to his superior officer; or (b) disobeys any standing order, or lawful command given by his superior officer; or (c) neglects to obey a general order given by the Pradhan-Senani (Commandant-General) or the Senani (Commandant) of the unit to which he belongs; or (d) is found in a state of intoxication; or (e) being an officer of the Nagar-Sainik (Home Guards) strikes or ill-treats any person who is his subordinate in rank or position and is subject to the provisions of the Act. 10. Predominantly, the show-cause was for the offences was said to have been committed to disobey the standing order or lawful command given by the superior officer and negligence to obey a general order given by the Pradhan-Senani or the Senani. The petitioners have filed the byelaws of the society for which they faced the show-cause notice. Perusal of the bye-laws its preamble and object shows that the society was formed to support the widow of the deceased Home Guards, their children and the disabled persons to give them support. The petitioners have filed the byelaws of the society for which they faced the show-cause notice. Perusal of the bye-laws its preamble and object shows that the society was formed to support the widow of the deceased Home Guards, their children and the disabled persons to give them support. The object also takes into sweep to make such disabled persons and the dependents to be self-dependent and also provide support to the meritorious students to march ahead in their life. 11. Whether the Home Guards being public servant can form a society as it was objected by the show-cause? the Supreme Court in the matter of O.K. Ghosh and another Vs. E.X. Joseph { AIR 1963 SC 812 } observed that the fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution of India can be claimed by Government servants. Article 33 which confers power on the Parliament to modify the rights in their application to the Armed Forces, clearly brings out the fact that all citizens, including Government servants, are entitled to claim the rights guaranteed by Article 19. Therefore, the petitioners by forming a society in the nature to help the widow, children and the disabled persons were entitled to form the association and the restriction which are not embodied in Rule 11 (b) & (c) for which the notice was served cannot be extended to prohibit formation of association. There is nothing on record that the said restriction which was thought of by the respondent and the actions of the petitioners were against the public interest or the discipline or they disobeyed any standing orders. Rule 11 of the Rules, 1947 specifically pushes the narrative of offenses against the force and the said offences can be said to have committed when the standing orders are disobeyed or lawful command given by his superior officer is disobeyed. However, if the order of the superior officer infringed to arrest the right guaranteed by the Constitution of India under Article 19, then what would be the effect? The answer would be without any doubt the constitutional hijack cry would loom into view. 12. Be that as it may, the dismissal order would show that after the showcause, reply was having been given, the respondent was not satisfied with the reply their services were terminated. The answer would be without any doubt the constitutional hijack cry would loom into view. 12. Be that as it may, the dismissal order would show that after the showcause, reply was having been given, the respondent was not satisfied with the reply their services were terminated. Rule 12 (1) & (6) speaks about such dismissal and the nature how it is to be conducted. For ready reference Rule 12 (1) & (6) are reproduced:- 12(1) Without prejudice to the institution of a criminal prosecution in any case one or more of the following punishments may be imposed on a Nagar – Sainik (Home Guard) found guilty of an offence specified in rule 11:- (I) reprimand: (II) confinement to barracks for a period not exceeding one week: (III) extra parade and extra fatigue: (iv) suspension: (v) reduction in rank: (vi) dismissal xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (6) If an officer is alleged to be guilty of an offence against the force the Senani (Commandant) or the Pradhan-Senani (Commandant- General), as may be appropriate, shall summon the accused officer and make a summary inquiry. The enquiring officer shall furnish the accused with a copy of the charges preferred against him and shall give him an opportunity to disprove the charges or show cause in extenuation. No punishment other than reprimand, confinement to barracks (if the accused officer is at a training camp) or suspension shall be imposed by the Senani (Commandant) or the Pradhan-Senani (Commandant-General), as the case may be. If the Senani (Commandant) or the Pradhan-Senani (Commandant- General), as the case may be, considers that the case requires more severe punishment, the papers shall be submitted to the Provincial Government with a recommendation, and the Provincial Government may after such Inquiry, if any, as it considers necessary impose any punishment specified in sub-rule (1) and may order the prosecution of the accused officer. 13. Close reading of Rule 12 (6) of the Rules, 1947 would show that if an officer is alleged to be guilty of an offence against the force the Senani or the Pradhan Senai, then he would be summoned and he would face summary inquiry and the enquiring officer shall furnish the accused with a copy of the charges preferred against him and shall give him an opportunity to disprove the charges or show cause in extenuation. It further categorically states that no punishment other than reprimand, confinement to barracks or suspension shall be imposed by the Senani or the Pradhan Senani, as the case may be, and in case it is considered that the case requires more severe punishment, the papers shall be submitted to the Provincial Government with a recommendation, and the Provincial Government may after such Inquiry, if any, as it considers necessary impose any punishment specified in sub-rule (1) and may order the prosecution of the accused officer. 14. The Supreme Court in the matter of Davinder Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others { (2010) 13 SCC 88 } observed that even in matters of discharge the authority concerned cannot act arbitrarily. In the instant case in hand the petitioners have been dismissed from the services for indiscipline qua Rule 11 (1) (b) & (c) for formation of a society, I fail to understand as to how such formation of association would fall within the ambit of Rule 11 (1) (b) & (c) when the object for which was pious for the beneficiaries like widow and the children. Admittedly, no opportunity was given to the petitioners and no inquiry as contemplated under Rule 12 (6) of the Rules, 1947 was done. Consequently, prima facie, the dismissal order passed by the respondent appears to be per se illegal and cannot be sustained as it de hors the statute and the Act governing the field. 15. Accordingly, both the petitions are allowed and the order of dismissal dated 15/04/2011 passed in both the cases are quashed. The petitioners are directed to be reinstated in the service with all back wages.