Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Y.Ramanjaneyulu vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATl
(Special Original Jurisdiction) i
THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL |
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY ONE \
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NOS: 16218, 15611 OF 2019. 172, 2376, 16990. 2412.
12149, 24946, 14214, 23873 OF 2020 AND 5136, 4825, 1316. 825. 3528.
4412 OF 2021
W.P. No. 16218 of 2019
Between:
V. Sadasiva, S/o.R.Venkateshulu, Aged about 29 years, Home Guard 1606,
(Under order of termination) Home Guards Organization, Chittoor District, R/o.
Gutharlapalli Village, Kanamanapalli Post, Gudupalli Mandal, Chittoor District -
517 425.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Addl. Director General of Police, Home Guards, A.P. Vijayawada.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Chittoor.
...Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in passing the rd impugned orders of the 3 respondent in D.O.No.07/2012, Rc.No.B7/HGs/1295/2012, dated 19-06-2012 wherein removed the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards Organization without following due procedure contemplated under law as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard.
2lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court • rnay be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned orders of the 3 rd respondent in D.O.No.07/2012, Rc.No.B7/HGs/1295/2012 dated 19-06- 2012 by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard pending disposal of the writ petition. lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner for amendment of prayer by replacing the impugned orders of the 3'"' respondent as "D.O.No. 08/2018, dated 31-01-2018, instead of D.O.No. 07/2012, Rc.No. B7/HGs/1295/2012, dated 19-06-2012.
Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. K. SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondents: SRI N. ASWARTHA NARAYANA GP FOR SERVICES I W.P, NO: 15611 OF 2019 Between:
P^golu Nagaraju Subbarao, Aged 30 years, Occ; Home Guard- Pradesh^^°'^^^ ' Rayanapadu Krishna District 521241 Andhra ...Petitioner AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by it's Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, A.P.
2. The Inspector General of Police, Home Guards, DGP Office Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 522502 ^ Dis1rict° Am^hr^Prade^^ Guards, Andhra Region, Mangalagiri, Guntur 3 #
4. The Commissioner of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Region, Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS, declaring the high handed action of the respondents, in removing my name from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization, Vijayawada City, Krishna district, as illegal, void ab-initio, arbitrary and unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India, apart from opposed to well known principles of natural Justice and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate me into service as Home Guard under the control of the respondents, with all consequential benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into the service as Home Guard in the office of the Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, by taking into account of the Judgment rendered by Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, in "The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs. Prasad Rao, 2012(4)ALT324, pending final disposal of the main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner; M/s. BURUGU SRILATHA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES - I 4 W.P. NO: 172 OF 2020 Between:
Anjaneyulu @ Anji, S/o. Dongara Paparao, Age- 36 ^ 685, D.No. 30-3-3, Murthv Street Karmikapuram, Vijayawada (Urban) Buckingharnpet, Krishna District^ ...Petitioner , ^ AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home h 9 Thf Velagapudi at Amaravathi, Guntur District Guards, Andhra Pradesh, D.G.P.Office s Premises, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
3. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
4. The Commandant, Home Guards, Vijayawada, Krishna District i Superintendent of Police, Home Guards Unit Vijayawada Krishna District.
^ Krishna Wstrict^^^^^^^'^ (Admin), Home Guards Unit, Vijayawada City ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the Final Order proceedings C.No.1719/H1/20 13 and D.O.No.08/2015, dated 25.02.2015 issued by the 3'"^ Respondent i; in removing the Petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards Organization though the Petitioner was acquitted in criminal case through the Award of Lok- Adalat dated 18.03.2014, as illegal, arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, violative of Principles of Natural Justice and consequently set aside the Final Order dated 25.02.2015 and direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner as a Home Guard along with all other consequential benefits by taking him into the rolls of Home Guards Organization.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fiied in support of the writ petition, the High Court may 5 be pleased to suspend the Final Order proceedings C.No.1719/H1/2 013 and D.O.No.08/2015, dated 25.02.2015 issued by the 3'"'^ Respondent and to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner as a Home Guard by taking him into the rolls of Home Guards Organization, pending disposal of the Writ Petition in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 2376 OF 2020 Between:
Chiranjeevi Satya Varma, S/o. Seetha Rama Raju, aged about 38 years, Occ. Home Guard (HG 565), R/o D.No.1-12-64, Milatary road, Kondayyapalem, Kakinada, E.G.District, A.P. ...Petitioner AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary (Home Department) Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, A.P.
2. The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards AP at Vijayawada.
3. The Superintendent of Police, East Godavari District at Kakinada.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Guards, Rajahmahendravaram.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^'^ respondent struck off the name of the petitioner from the rolls of East Godavari, Home guard organization with effect from 19-06-2009 vide order Do.no.06/2009, C.NO.6070/H1/2009 dated 04-12-2009 without issuing show cause notice is illegal arbitrary and violative of principles of Natural Justice and setaside the 6 same and re-instate him on rolls of East Godavari, Home guard organization with immediate effect.
lA NO: 1 OF 2n2n Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the order Do.No.06/2009, C.no.6070/H1/2009 dated 04-12-2009 and reinstate him on the rolls of the East Godavari, Home organization with immediate effect pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. FOR HOME W.P. NO: 16990 OF 2020 Between:
Sk Mahaboob Subhani, S/o, Abdul Rahim, Age. 35, D No 5-28 Tummurkota Village, RentachinthalaMandal, Guntur District ...Petitioner AND ^ Secretariat, Velagapudi,byGuntur Principal Secretary, Home Department District.
2. The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards A P Vijayawada.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural District, Guntur ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction. more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in passing the impugned orders of the respondent in C.No.13015/HG-1/2019, D.O.No.229/201 9, dated 07-03-2019 wherein removed the petitioner from the rolls of Home 7 Guards Organization on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.95/2017, U/s.307, 385, 427 R/w 34 I.P.C., dt. 13-04-2017 of Macherla Urban PS and not reinstating him to duty though he was acquitted in the Said criminal case in S.C.No.448 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazalaas illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the impugned orders of the 3^^^ respondent in C.No.13015/HG-1/2019, D.O.No.229/2019, dated 07/03/2019 by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned orders of the rd impugned orders of the 3 respondent in C.No.13015/HG-1/2019, D.O.No.229/2019, dated 07-03-2019 by directing the respondents to • reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B. KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 2412 OF 2020 Between:
J. Lovaraju, S/o. Bapiraju, Aged about 32 years. Home Guard 1235, (Under order of removal), Home Guards Organization, Guntur District, R/o. D.No.3- 423, Military Colony, Katheru, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District 533 105.
...Petitioner AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Addl. Director General of Police, Home Guards, A.P. Vijayawada.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur District, Guntur ...Respondents 8 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction. more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in passing the impugned orders of the 3^'^ respondent in C.No.16316/HG-1/2015, D.O.No.582/2015, dated 15-05-2015 wherein removed the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards Organization without following due procedure contemplated under law as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ ion, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned orders of the 3^'^ respondent in C.No.16316/HG-1/2015, D.O.No.582/2015, dated 15-05-2015 by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B. KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 12149 OF 2020 Between:
Y ^J^y^ll^rayana W/o. Late Srimannarayana Age. 40, Home Guard No R/o D.Nol0-1-25, Chinnaranganipalem, Behind FCI District^' P-^enkatrao, Retd V6DO, Bhimavaram- 534201, West Godavari ...Petitioner . _ ^ AND '' n ^ State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home D^trt^^^*^ ' Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur General of Police, Government of Andhra Pradesh Police Head Quarters, Mangalgiri, Guntur District.9
3. The Additional Director General of Police, (Home Guards) Police Head Quarters Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
4. The Commanandant, Home Guards, O/o The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
5. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly nd one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of The 2 Respondent in passing Rejection order vide Rc no.344/HGs. Esst/2019-5 th dated 27.01.2020 coupled with Removal order passed by the 5 Respondent vide C.No.8514/H1/2014 under D.O.No.05/2015 dated 31.01.2015 in removing the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards organization without conducting proper enquiry is being is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Rule 20 of The Andhra Pradesh civil service ( CCA) Rules1961 violation of natural justice besides offends the Hon'ble high court judgment held by JJ W$ Rao and K.G Sankar, reported in ALT 2012 (4) page 324 (DB) Article 14,21 and 311(2) Constitution of India by setting aside same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of services.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard with full back wages and continuity of services forth with by suspend the operation of Rejection orders passed by the 2'^'^ Respondent vide Rc no.344/HGs. Esst/2019-5 dated 27.01.2020 coupled with Removal orders passed by the 5*^ Respondent vide C No 8514/H 1 /2014 under D.O.No.05/ 2015 dated 31.01.2015 pending disposal of main writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD 10 Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 24946 OF 202n Between:
Nidikonda Raju S/o. Veeraiah Occ.Home Guard R/o D No 4-58/A Narasannapalem Village, Lingapalem Mandal, West Godavari District.
...Petitioner AND Pradesh, Rep.by its Principal Secretary to Government Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.
2. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru.
3. The Reserve Inspector, Home Guards, Eluru, West Godavari District.
DiSr^?^'°^ Officer, Chatrai Police Station, Chatrai, Krishna ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of respondents particularly the 3'"^ respondent in not allowing petitioner to perform his duties as Home Guard in the services of respondents 1 to 3, in spite of continuation of his services as such without considering his Explanation/Reply dated 25.07.2020 submitted to the Show Cause Notice in C.No.3574/G5/2020, dated 13.07.2020 issued by the 2 respondent. nd without passing any termination order by following any known procedure established by law as illegal, irregular, arbitrary, violative of settled principles of service jurisprudence and offends Articles 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow petitioner to attend to his duties in the said post and pay him regular salary and past arrears with all attendant benefits.
11lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents 1 to 3 to allow petitioner to attend to his duties as Home Guard in the services of the respondents 1 to 3 by paying regular salary, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the proposed respondents 5 and 6 to be impleaded as parties/respondents 5 and 6 in Writ Petition No. 24946 of 2020 and also pending miscellaneous petitions therein, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 14214 OF 2020 Between:
K.Sridhar, S/o. Krishna Rao Age 32 year Occ: Home Guard -277 (Removed) O/o.Intelligence Security Wing, Vijayawada R/o.H.No.1-72, Satyavaram Village, Near Vinayaka Temple, Payakaraopet Mandal, Visakhapatnam District.
...Petitioner AND
1. The Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, A.P. Vijayawada, Krishna District.
2. The Deputy, Superintendent of Police, Intelligence Head Quarters, State of A.P. Vijayawada, Krishna District.
3. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat Velagapudi, Guntur District.
...Respondents 12 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated i in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declare the action of the respondents herein in removing the petitioner from Home Guard Rolls vide impugned D.O.No.623/2020 Rc.No.B1/3266/2020 dated 09-07-2020 as highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and this Hon'ble Court may pleased to declare that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement as Home Guard in ISW by set a-siding the impugned removal orders dated 9-7-2020, by granting all consequential benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2090 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the impugned removal orders vide D.O.No.623/2020 Rc.No.B1/3266/2020, dated 09/07/2020 issued by the respondents with a further direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Home Guard in ISW.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. M R TAGORE Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P, NO: 23873 OF 2n?n Between:
Banda Prasad, S/o B. Gokari, Hindu, Male aged about 35 years. Home Guard (Removed) H.No-1/28, Chinthalapalli ^(V)' Miduthur (M), Nandikotkur (TQ), Kurnool District, A P ...Petitioner AND M^nglgH v1?yL1da'!tdhra''Sadesh.®'"*® 13
3. The Additional Director General of Police, (Home Guards), Andhra Pradesh, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada, A.P.
4. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Kurnool District, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Guards, Kurnool.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action the Respondent No.5 in imposing major punishment of removal vide Order Proceedings D.O.N0.31T.1.4 2019 /C.N.282/HIMGs/Knl/2018-19 dated-11-03-2019 without fallowing due process of law laid down in Article 311(2) of Constitution of India and Rule 7(4) of the Madras Home Gurards Rules, 1949 which is applicable to Andhra Pradesh Home Guards which is mandatory to be followed before imposing major punishment as illegal, arbitrary and violation of Rule 7(4) of the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949 and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, and consequentlydirect the 5"^ respondent (i) to reinstate the into the service as Home Guard by setting- aside the impugned removal order passed by the 5*^ respondent vide Order Proceedings D.O.No.317/A4/2019/C.N,282/H1/HGs/Knl/2018-19 datedll-
03-2019. ii. to consider me deemed to be on duty from 1-01-2019 and pay all my salary benefits till today.
lA NO: 1 OF 2020 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may th be pleased to suspend the impugned Removal Order passed by the 5 respondent vide Order Proceedings D.O.No.317/A4/2019/C.N.282/ 14 H1/HGs/Kn1/2018-19 dated: 11-03-2019 in the interest of protecting Justice pending disposal of the main Writ Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. MURALI LINCOLN Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 5136 OF 2021 Between:
S/0. Venkateswra Rao, Aged about 26 years, Home board 338 (Under order of removal), Home Guards Organization, Guntur DistS' Makendaya Colony, Mangalagiri Town, Guntur ...Petitioner AND State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Vijayawada.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban, Guntur.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent i passing the impugned in orders of the 3'^^ respondent in C.No.10142/H1/2019, D.O.No.62/2019 dated 06.02-2019 wherein removed the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards Organization on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case vide Crime No.245/2018, U/s.384 I.P.C. dated 13.04.2017 of Arundalpet PS, Guntur Urban and not reinstating him to duty though he was acquitted in the said criminal case in Case No. 513 of 2018 in LA 1355 of 2018 dated 08.09.2018 before LOK ADALAT BENCH, GUNTUR as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the impugned orders of the 3'^'^ respondent in 15 C.NO.10142/H1/2019 D.O.No.62/2019, dated 06.02-2019 by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard with all consequential benefits.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned orders of the rd impugned orders of the 3 respondent in C.No.10142/H1/2019, D.O.No.62/2019, dated 06.02-2019 by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard pending disposal of the writ petition pending disposal of the above writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI T S N SUDHAKAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 4825 OF 2021 Between:
Sk. Khajavali, S/o. Late Sk.Dastagiri, Aged about 46 years, Home Guard 638 (Under order of removal), Home Guards Organization, Guntur District, R/o. D.No.79-115, 22 Ward, Market Centre, R.Agraharam, Chaparala Veedhi, Guntur.
...Petitioner AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Addl. Director General of Police, Home Guards, A.P., Vijayawada.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Rural District, Guntur.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent in passing the impugned 16 orders of the 3^^ respondent in D.O.No.30/2009, C.No.20360/HG-2/ 2009, dated 04-01-2010 wherein removed the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards Organization without following due procedure contemplated under law as Illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary, contrary to law and also violation of principles of natural justice and set aside the same by further directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned orders of the 3'^^ respondent in D.O.No.30/2009, C.No.20360/HG-2/2009, dated 04-01-2010 by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service as Home Guard pending disposal of the writ petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. B. KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 1316 OF 2021 Between:
Kandula Srikanth S/o. K. Dasaratha Rama Rao R/o. 27/39, Ramjala Road Jeevandhatha Institute, Adhoni, Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh State.
...Petitioner AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Secretary, Home Department, A.P Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Inspector General of Police, Rayalaseema Region, Kadapa District. Kufnoof General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool,
4. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa.
...Respondents 17 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the removal order vide proceedings C.N0.34/OEPR/2OI2, dated 22.05.2013 passed by respondent No.4, as confirmed in appeal by respondent No.3 vide proceedings C.No.C2/Appeal- 22/2013, dated 26.11.2014, and further confirmed in revision petition by respondent No.2 vide proceedings in Rc.No.296/IGP/SZ/RR-lll/2015 and ROO.No.110/2015, dated 02.06.2015, as illegal, arbitrary, biased, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, and consequently, set aside the same.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to expedite hearing of the writ petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. D S N V PRASAD BABU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 825 OF 2021 Between:
Mamidi Rama Kiran, S/o. Venkata Ramana, Hindu, Aged about 35 Yrs, Home Guard 615 Narsipatnam Unit, Vishakapatnam R/o. 20-40/2, Nagendra Colony, Near Kamakshi Temple, Yelamanchali, Yelamanchali Mandal, Vishakapatnam District.
...Petitioner AND
1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Bldgs, Amaravati, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Guntur District, Mangalagiri.18
3. The Superintendent of Police, Vishakapatnam, Vishakapatnam District.
4. The Commandant, Home Guards Organization, Vishakapatnam.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus -
declaring the orders passed by the 3 respondent in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement and confirmed the order of removal in C.No. 3518/H1 /2019 Dated 17.10.2020 even without taking into consideration of the orders vide Memo RC No. 158/HGs/Esst./2020 Dt.28.7.2020 passed by the appellate authority i.e. Director General of Police, Mangalagiri and confirming the orders passed by the 3rd respondent in D No. 14/2020, C No. 3518/H1/2019 dated 11.5.2020 m removal of the petitioner from service of Home Guard is illegal, arbitrary and consequently set aside the same by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith into service of the Home Guard with consequential service benefits with all continuity of service in the interest of justice.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to reinstate the petitioner as Home Guard (615) in Narsipatnam Unit, Vishakapatnam by suspending the proceedings of the 3 respondent in C.No. 3518/H1/2019 Dated 17.10.2020 pending disposal of the above WP in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. A. SREEDHAR Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME 19 W.P, NO: 3528 OF 2021 Between;
Y.Ramanjaneyulu, S/o. Y.Ganganna, aged 43 Years, Occ; Home Guard (Removed), R/o.D.No.1/558-20 B, Rajeevgandhi nagar, Kadiri (M), Anantapur District.
...Petitioner AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Addl.Director General of Police, Home Guards, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the vide proceedings D.O.No.18/H1/2004, C.No.2337H1/2004, dated 06.10.2004 on the file of the 3'^'^ respondent in removing the name of petitioner from the rolls of Home Guard organization of Anantapur District as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, against the principles of natural justice and also against the Law laid down by the Hon'ble High court in WP.No.14907/2014 dated 03.06.2014 and in WP.No.12414/2019 dated 29.08.2019 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Home Guard forthwith in terms of the said judgments of the Hon'ble High Court.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the proceedings D.O.No.18/H1/2004, C.NO.2337H1/2004, dated 06.10.2004 on the file of the 3'^^ respondent by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service as Home Guard forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner; SRI. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA 20 Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME W.P. NO: 4412 OF 2021 Between:
^9®' yeafs, Occ. Home
Guard (29^9) (Removed), R/o. Thogummi Village, Kowuru Mandal West
Godavari District, Andhra Pradesh.
...Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Velagapudi, Amaravathi.
The Director General of Police, Mangalagirt, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Chairman cum Additional Director General of Police Home Guards, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
4. The Commandant (Home Guards), Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
5. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District at Eluru Andhra Pradesh.
6. The Reserve Inspector (Home Guards), Eluru, West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh.
...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide Memorandum in Rc No. 391/HGs.Estt/2019-3 dt. 18-11-2020 and without considering the acquittal order of IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track court), Tanuku in CrI. A. No. 28 of 2010 dated 10.5.2011 as well as order of the Hon'ble High Court in W.P. No. 7501 of 2020 dt. 06.05.2020, is against the principles of natural justice and violative of Rules of A.R. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 consequently direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service as Home Guard along with 21 consequential benefits by considering representation dt. 23.10.201.9 forthwith.
lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner into service by suspending the Removal Order in D.O. No. 11/2007 in C. No. 1053/H1/2007 dt. 26.03.2007 issued by the 5"^ respondent by suspending the rd Memorandum in Rc No. 391/HGs.Estt/2019-3 dt. 18-11-2020 issued by 3 respondent forthwith.
Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. BVSS BALAKRISHNA RANJIT Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following COMMON ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY W.P.Nos.16218, 15611 of 2019, W.P.Nos. 172, 2376, 16990, 2412, 12149, 24946, 14214, 23873 of 2020 and W.P.Nos.5136, 4825, 1316, 825, 3528, 4412 of 2021 COMMON ORDER, All these writ petitions are filed by the terminated/removed Home Guards under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings issued by the respondents either terminating or removing them from Home Guards Organisation as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice;
consequently set aside those proceedings and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioners into Home Guards Organisation along with other consequential benefits.
W.P.No.16218 of 2019:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings D.O.No.07 of 2012, Rc.No.B7/HGS/1295/2012 dated 19.06.2012 issued by respondent No.3.
The petitioner was deputed to work at Kuppam RTC Bus Depot. While discharging his duties. the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with ladies during Jatharas in intoxicated condition and collected money from the villagers styling himself as police constable, thereupon a letter was addressed by A.P.Road Transport Corporation for surrendering the petitioner to the Home Guards Organisation. Later, a show cause notice was issued on 02.02.2016 calling for explanation and on receipt of explanation, considering the same, the petitioner was removed from service. However, the removal of the petitioner on the said ground without conducting any MSMJ WP No.16218 2019 and batch 2 enquiry is illegal. Therefore, the removal of the petitioner is contraiy to the law declared by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Prasad Rao^ The respondents filed counter reiterating the reason assigned in the impugned proceedings i.e. the petitioner while working on deputation at Kuppam Bus Depot, he used to misbehave with ladies during Jatharas in intoxication condition and only on the letter addressed by the RTC, the petitioner was removed after following necessary procedure. It is further contended that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Vijayawada was dismissed as there is no merit, consequently, the removal of the petitioner is in accordance with law, supported the impugned order.
W.P.No. 15611 of 2019:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.3823/H1/2017 and D.O.No. 11/2018 dated 11.04.2018 issued by respondent No.4.
The petitioner was removed from Home Guards Organisation on the ground that he was collecting bribe from lorry drivers while discharging his duties at Y.V.Rao Estate Beat Point i.e. 12.00 noon to 10.00 hours, and 20.00 hours to 23.00 hours on 01.08.2017, the same was published in Eenadu daily newspaper. Thereupon, a show-cause notice was issued on 24.11.2017 calling for explanation. On submission of the explanation, considering the same, the order impugned in the writ petition was passed. However, the same is challenged on the ground that the no enquiry was conducted, thereby denied an opportunity to the petitioner to 2012 (4) ALT 324 MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 3 explain the same and that no crime was registered against the petitioner for indulging in corrupt practices, therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside, the petitioner requested to set aside the same basing on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in "State of Madhya Pradesh v. Syed Quamar AVP and the law declared by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Prasad Rao" (referred supra).
Respondents filed counter denying all the material allegations, supported the order on the ground that the petitioner indulged in corrupt practices on the date and time referred in the writ petition.
A news item was published in Eenadu Daily Amaravathi City edition at page No.20 with photographs "ting.... ting.... padithe right right...", wherein it was specifically alleged that police allowing the hundreds of heavy transport vehicles through CVR Fly over during the diversion period by taking Rs.lOO/- from each vehicle. A show-
cause notice was issued calling for explanation and only considering the explanation, the impugned proceedings were issued, thereby it is not contrary to any of the procedures contemplated under law, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
W.P.No.172 of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.No. 1719/H1/2013 and D.O.No.08/2015 dated 25.02.2015 issued by respondent No.3.
The case of the petitioner is that, a case in Crime No. 191 of 2013 was registered against him on 05.03.2013 for the offence punishable under Section 497 of Indian Penal Code (for short ^ 1967 SLR 228 MSM.J WP No. 16218_201 9 and batch 4 "I.P.C.") and there are discrepancies both in the compliant and the charge sheet. However, it was settled before the Lok Adalat and an award was passed by the Lok Adalat on 18.03.2014 as the offence punishable under Section 497 of I.P.C. is compounded, thereby acquitted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 497 of I.P.C.
Respondents filed counter contending that the petitioner id IS guilty of moral turpitude and that he is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 497 of I.P.C. by an award. A preliminary enquirer was ordered. The Inspector of Police, City Special Branch, Vijayawada city enquired into the matter and submitted his report about the involvement of the petitioner in the above crime and acquittal for the offence punishable under Section 497 of I.P.C. and that the petitioner was circulating Call money about Rs.25,00,000/- to Rs.30,00,000/- in the city for high interest rates, acquired three stairs building in the city and also doing telemarketing business and that the petitioner also participated in gambling and cricket betting, thereby such conduct of the petitioner amounts to misconduct and liable for removal, requested to dismiss the writ petitio n. W.P.No.2376 of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.6070/H1/2009 and D.O.No.06/2009 dated 04.12.2009 issued by respondent No.3.
While the petitioner was working as member of Home Guards Organisation in East Godavari District, he was removed from service by issuing impugned proceedings on the ground that the petitioner was involved in Crime No. 116 of 2009 of Sappavaram Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 170 and 384 of I.P.C. After MSM,J WP No.l6218_2019 and batch 5 completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet, the same was registered as C.C.No.322 of 2009 on the file of learned Special Mobile Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kakinada. The petitioner was found not guilty after full-fledged trial. Though the petitioner was found not guilty, removal from service is an illegality and that the petitioner is a public servant and entitled to claim protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. But the respondents removed the petitioner from service without following various provisions of Madras Home Guards Act, 1948, more particularly Section 7 of the said Act and Rules framed thereunder.
It is further contended that failure to issue show-cause notice as required under Section 7 (4) of the Act is violation of statutory rule and also violation of principles of natural justice, thereby removal of the petitioner from Home Guards Organisation is contrary to the principles of natural justice, requested to set aside the impugned proceedings.
Respondents filed counter denying material allegations while admitting that the petitioner was a member of Home Guards Organisation and contended that while he was performing duties in Sarpavaram police station on the night 17.06.2009 the complainant Gudiwada Kameswara Rao along with his friends Vaitla Uday Kiran Sai, Kancherla Atchiraju, Duggirala Sreenivasa Rao went to the house of Vegesina Ramaraju. While the complainant Gudiwada Kameswara Rao along with Vaitla Uday Kiran Sai, Kancherla Atchiraju, Duggirala Sreenivasa Rao playing cards in the house of Vegesina Satyanarayana Raju for time pass, the accused Burra Ramesh and 5 others including the petitioner went there at about 22.00 hours in plain dress, informed that they are police personnel MSM,.I WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 6 and demanded Rs.20,000/- for not booking case against them, accordingly they paid Rs.20,000/-. Later, when the accused informed the complainant over cell phone to meet them near 11 Town Police Station, Kakinada, the complainant along with his friends met the accused Burra Ramesh and petitioner, they demanded payment of Rs.20,000/- and forcibly took Bajaj Pulsar Motor Cycle bearing No.AP 05 BE 1010 informing to take back the bike after giving Rs.20,000/-, otherwise threatened to book case against them. On the night of 18.06.2009, when the accused Burra Ramesh informed the complainant Gudiwada Kameswara Rao to bring money to Nagamallithota junction and collect bike after giving money, the complainant met the accused Burra Ramesh and paid Rs.10,000/-
to him and taken his bike. Later, the complainant Gudiwada Kameswara Rao came to know that the accused are not police personnel and thereby lodged a complainant in Sarpavaram Police Station, the same was registered as a case in crime No. 116 of 2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 170 and 384 read with 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet against the petitioner and others. As the petitioner involved in such serious case involving moral turpitude, he was removed from service. It is further contended that the petitioner is not a government servant, he is only member of Home Guards Organisation and that the Home Guards Organisation is a wholly voluntary organisation working on daily remuneration vide order No.935 (2), (4), (8) and 937 (1) of A.P.Police manual. If any Home Guard without sufficient cause neglects or refuse to obey the orders of any superior authority or officer, or fails to discharge any other duty, or deserts his post, or is guilty of a/iy wilful breach or neglect MSM,J WP No.l6218_2019 and batch 7 of any provision of the Act or any rule or..lawful order made or issued by a competent authority, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine, which may extend to Rs.250/- or with both. Therefore, the petitioner was removed after following the procedure prescribed under law and that the respondents did not violate any law, requested to dismiss the petition.
W.P.No. 16990 of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.13015/HG-1/2019 and D.O.No.229/2019 dated 07.03.2019 issued by respondent No.3.
While the petitioner was discharging his duties in Gurazala Sub-Unit, Guntur, he involved in Crime No.95 of 2017 of Macherla Urban Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 385, 324, 427 read with 34 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed and the same was registered as S.C.No.448 of 2017 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Gurazala, but he was found not guilty by calendar and judgment dated 28.01.2020 after full-fledged trial. Immediately, the petitioner made a representation to reinstate him setting aside the impugned order, but no action was taken. Thereby, the order is violative of principles of natural justice, contrary to the law laid by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Bolupadra Krishna Rao^" wherein it was held that when the accused in a criminal case has been honourably acquitted on merits, it cannot be said that he is involved in an offence involving moral turpitude. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal.
^ 2012 (3) ALT 571 MSM,J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 8 requested to set aside the same.
No counter is filed by the respondents.
W.P.No.24ia of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.16316/HG-1/2015 and D.O.No.582/2015 dated 15.05.2015 issued by respondent No.3.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was suddenly fell ill on 16.08.2014, underwent treatment at Renuka Devi Hospital, Guntur.
After conducting necessary medical investigation, the Doctor revealed that he was suffering from Jaundice and advised him to take bed rest for three months. In the above circumstances, he was constrained to go to his native village in East Godavari District, where his parents resides. Therefore, his absence was due to ill-
health. After recovery from ill-health, the petitioner was reported to duty, but he was not permitted to join duty. He was directed to report before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (AR), in turn he directed the Reserve Inspector to take him to duty. Since the Reserve Inspector is on leave, the petitioner waited till he resume to duty. Meanwhile, a show-cause notice was issued to him calling for explanation. Accordingly, he submitted his explanation, but he was removed from Home Guards Organisation as he was absent for substantially long period. The same was challenged on the ground that it was contrary to the principles of natural justice and the principle laid down by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in "the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Prasad Rao" (referred supra).
On this ground, the order is liable to be set aside.
No counter is filed by the respondents.
MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 9 W.P.No.12149 of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.No.344/HGs.Esst/2019-5 dated 27.01.2020 issued by respondent No.2.
While the petitioner is working as member in Home Guards Organisation in the unit of West Godavari District, he was removed on the ground that he collected money from local Diwali Fireworks by name Avutapalli Musalaiah, Gadi Guravaiah through Jeep driver K.Hussain, Home Guard No. 161 and that the said incident was witnessed by Suryanarayana, Head Constable, Srinivasarao, police Constable, D.N.Prasad, police constable. Thereupon, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but without considering the same, the impugned order was passed. It is further contended that the impugned order is passed in violation of A.P. Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1961 and that the removal of the petitioner without conducting any enquiry is a grave illegality and contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Prasad Rad (referred supra). The petitioner made a representation to reinstate him into service, but it was not considered. Finally, it is contended that the removal of the petitioner is violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, requested to set aside the same.
The respondents did not file counter.
W.P.No.24946 of 2020- The petitioner herein challenged the action of respondent No.3 in not allowing him to perform his duties as Home Guard without considering his explanation/reply dated 25.07.2020 submitted to the show-cause notice in^44o.3574/G5/2020 dated 13.07.2020.
MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 10 While the petitioner was serving in Home Guards Organisation of West Godavari District unit, he was removed from service on the ground that he involved in a criminal case. It is the case of the petitioner that he received a phone call from his maternal uncle that his wife is suffering from pain in abdomen and asked him to come to home immediately to provide treatment to her. On receipt of such of Fire information, he obtained permission from the in-charge Station, Chintalapudi to go to his wife at Burugugudem. While he was proceeding to Burugugudem along with his friend by name Chalamala Srinivasa Rao and when they reached Burugugudem, a and a Swift Dzire car§> bearing No.AP 37 PA 3195 was stopped, known person B.Ramana Kishore Reddy got down the car and while he was tdking to the petitioner, respondent No.4 came there and questioned the driver of the car why the car was stopped and the driver of the car stated that he was the brother-in-law of the said B.Ramana Kishore Reddy. Respondent No.4 verified the car and found liquor bottles in the car and seized the liquor bottles allegedly State.
transported from Khammam District of Telangana and his friend Chalamala Respondent No.4 asked the petitioner Srinivasa Rao to come to police station for which he refused and stated that he was no way concerned with the illegal transportation of liquor bottles. However, they appeared before respondent No.4 on the 20.06.2020 and on appearance, respondent No.4 insisted petitioner to sign on certain papers without going through the contents of the papers, the petitioner signed on those documents, that he was which is styled as occurrence report and came to know falsely implicated in Crime No.252 of 2020 dated 20.06.2020 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 384 read r MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch with 34 of I.P.C. and under Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act. On the basis of said registration of crime, the petitioner was removed from service after , issuing show-cause notice dated 13.07.2020.
Accordingly, the petitioner submitted explanation, but the impugned order was passed without conducting any enquiry. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice, requested to set aside the same.
The plea of the respondents is that the petitioner was transporting liquor in contravention of A.P.Excise Act and liable for punishment under Section 34 (A) of the Excise Act and that a crime was registered in Crime No.252 of 2020 dated 20.06.2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 384 read with 34 of I.P.C.
and under Section 34 (A) of A.P.Excise Act. Therefore, the petitioner had indulged in illegal activities, which amounts to moral turpitude as he is required to maintain high degree of discipline; as such the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. After following necessary procedure, the services of the petitioner were terminated. W.P.No.14214 of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings Rc.No.B 1/3266/2020 dated 09.07.2020 issued by the respondents.
The petitioner was removed from service on the ground that the petitioner had involved in Crime No.5/2020-Guntur-lI-7l dated 30.05.2020 registered for the offence punishable under Section 56 of A. P. Excise Act. As the petitioner was involved in such serious crime, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in Rc.No.B 1/3266/2020 calling for his explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation, but without considering the explanation, the impugned order was passed removing the petitioner MSM.J WP No. 162 18_2019 and batch 12 from service. It is specifically contended that the procedure under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 (for short "the Act") was not followed and no enquiry was conducted, thereby the punishment of removal is illegal and arbitrary, requested to set aside the impugned order.
Respondents filed counter admitting passing of impugned orders while contending that the alternative remedy to prefer an appeal is available against the impugned order, but no appeal was preferred. Without exhausting the alternative remedy, the writ petition is filed, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
It is further contended that as the notice was mandatory, show-cause notice was issued calling for explanation. As the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and failed to discharge his duties, imposed penalty of removal, consequently it is not in contravention of any of the provisions, more particularly Section 7 (4) of the A.P.Home Guards Act, requested to dismiss the writ petition. W.P.No.23873 of 2020:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings D.O.No.317/A4/2019/C.N.282/Hl/HGs/Knl/2018-19 dated 11.03.2019 issued by respondent No.5.
The main ground for removal of the petitioner is that he was absent from duty for a long period, the same is explained by the petitioner alleging that he received swelling injury to his left hand on 07.12.2018. As the same was not cured, he went to General Hospital, Kurnool. In the Hospital, the doctors diagnosed fracture to Ulna of shaft of left hand and the Doctor advised him to take bed rest. Thus, he completely recovered after treatment. Therefore, he was absent from duties for 23 days. It is neither intentional nor MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 13 wanton and it is only after oral intimation to superior officers. Thus, removal of the petitioner on the ground that he was absent from duty is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and the law declared by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh V. P. Prasad Rad (referred supra). requested to set aside the impugned proceedings.
Respondents filed counter admitting the removal of the petitioner under impugned proceedings after following necessary procedure i.e. issue of show-cause notice. It is specifically alleged that the petitioner was absent from 09.04.2018 to 03.10.2018 (total 178 days) without leave or prior permission from the superior officers. Further, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Guards, Kurnool served a memo vide Rc.No.23l/Hl/HGs/Knl/2018 dated 27.09.2018 for attending the oral enquiry on 03.10.2018 before the Additional.SP (ADMN), DPO, Kurnool for unauthorised absence for duties. In this connection, the petitioner submitted undertaking affidavit that he will not absent from duty in future and agreed for removal in case he is absent to duty. Thereupon, the Superintendent of Police, Kurnool permitted him to duty by order T?cJ^o.231/Hl/HGs/Knl/2018 dated 30.10.2018. Further, the petitioner again absent from duty for a period of 41 days from 07.12.2018 without prior permission or leave. Consequently, a memo vide Rc.No.C)2/Hl/HGs/Knl/2019 dated 04.01.2019 was issued directing him to appear before the concerned authorities for enquiry. He attended oral enquiry and submitted explanation, which was found not satisfactory. Thereupon, the petitioner was removed from Home Guards Organisation. Therefore, the respondents MSM.J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 14 followed the procedure, issued impugned orders, requested to dismiss the writ petition.
W.P.No.5136 of 2021.
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.10142/H1/2019 and D.O.No.62/2019 dated 06.02.2019 issued by respondent No.3.
It is the case of the petitioner that a case in Crime No.245 of 2018 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 284 of I.P.Q. of Arundalpet Police Station, Guntur Urban. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet is filed against the petitioner. However, he was acquitted due to compounding of offence before the Lok Adalat in case No.513 of 2018 in L.A.No.l355 of 2018 dated 08.09.2018 thereupon the petitioner made a representation to of reinstate him to the Home Guards Organisation on account acquittal in Criminal case, but the respondents issued impugned proceedings without following the procedure and that the removal of the petitioner is contrary to the law declared by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in "Government of Andhra. Pradesh v. Bolupadra Krishna Rao" (referred supra), therefore, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.
No counter is filed by the respondents.
W.P.No.4825 of 2021:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.20360/HG-2/2009 dated 04.01.2010 and D.O.No.30/2009 issued by respondent No.3.
It is the case of the petitioner that the impugned order was passed without following the procedure prescribed under law and m violation of principles of n atural justice. The petitioner was removed I, MSM.J W PNo. 1621 8_2019and batch 15 from service on the ground that he was absent from duty. However, the same was explained in the petition alleging that on-20.07.2009 he was suddenly fell sick and he was hospitalized, underwent treatment in local hospital at Guntur. Meanwhile, his father, who was retired Head Constable had suffered from paralytic stroke and he was forced to look after him as no other member in the family to take care of him. He informed the said fact to the higher authorities. requested to allow him to join duty, but they denied the same that they received instructions from higher authorities not to permit him to join duty. Thereafter, all of sudden without considering his request, impugned removal order dated 04.01.2010 was issued. The respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed under law and removed the petitioner from service in violation of principles of natural justice without issuing any notice calling for explanation and that the impugned order is contrary to the principles laid down by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in "the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Prasad Rao" Creferred supraj.
Respondents did not file any counter.WJP,No.1316 of 2021
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.NO.34/OEPR/2012 dated 22.05.2013 issued by respondentNo.4, as confirmed m appeal by respondent No.3 vide proceedings C.No.C2/Appeal-22/20l3 dated 26.11.2014, and further confirmed revision petition by respondent m No.2 vide proceedings in Rc.No.296/lGP/SZ/RR-IIl/2015 and ROO.No.110/2015 dated 02.06.2015.
The petitioner was discharging his duties as Constable to the satisfaction of his superiors. While so, the impugned order was WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 16 passed removing the petitioner from Home Guards Organisation on dereliction of duties.
the ground that he exhibited grave reprehensible misconduct by absenting from duty on 21.09.2012 at 09.00 a.m. and consumed Alcohol and abused the public in filthy language causing nuisance in public place and thereby violated Rule 3 (1) of A.P.Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The appeal and revision preferred by the petitioner were ended against the petitioner. Now, the petitioner contended that no enquiry was conducted as required under Rule 20 of the A.P. Civil Services (CC and A) Rules, 1991. The impugned order passed by the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice, requested to set aside the same.
No counter is filed by the respondents.
\V.P.No.825 of 2021:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings C.N0.3518/H 1/2019 dated 17.10.2020 issued by respondent No.3.
The petitioner was removed on the complaint lodged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 341, 323 and 506 of I.P.C. and also on account of pendency of C-C.No. 198 of 2014 on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yelamanchali under Section 353 and 506 of I.P.C- Both the cases were ended in acquittal by judgment dated 11.12.2017. However, Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam issued show-cause notice dated 06.12.2013 alleging that the petitioner's behaviour is cheap and collecting money from sand transporting lorry driver. Immediately, the petitioner submitted and without explanation, but without conducting any enquiry affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. Aggrieved by the same, an appeal was preferred, but V MSM,J WP No.l6218_2019 and batch 17 considering the contentions, the impugned order was confirmed.
Therefore, the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner, requested to set aside the impugned orders and reinstate the petitioner on humanitarian grounds also.
Respondents did not file counter.
W.P.No.3528 of 2021:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings D.O.NO.18/H1/2004 and C.No.2337/H 1/2004 dated 06.10.2004 issued by respondent No.3.
It is the case of the petitioner that he was removed from the service on the ground that a Crime No.49 of 2004 was registered against him on the file of Kothacheruvu Rural Police Station of Anantapur District for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 353, 323 and 510 of l.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed, and the same was registered as C.C.No.30 of 2005. After full-fledged trial. the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Penukonda found him not guilty and acquitted him vide calendar and judgment dated 15.09.2009.
When once the petitioner was acquitted, he requested the respondents to reinstate him into service and submitted a representation on 23.03.2015, but without considering the claim of the of the petitioner, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application along with delay condonation petition vide M.A.No.1819 of 2015. The same was allowed by order dated 02.11.2017 on payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. The petitioner MSM.J WP No.l6218_20l9and batch 18 complied with the order of the Tribunal dated 02.11.2017 and deposited Rs.5,000/- by way of D.D. bearing No.234791 dated 28.11.2017 and the application was registered as O.A.No.3257 of 2017, but the same was dismissed after full-fledged enquiry, without deciding the O.A. on merits, on the ground that the order of removal was not challenged by way of appeal. Thereupon the petitioner preferred an appeal, but no order was passed. However, inaction of the authorities was challenged in W.P.No. 19512 of 2017, this Court held that the order was passed contrary to Rule 7 (4) of the Home Guards Act, 1948, which makes it clear that the filing of appeal is not mandatory. It is further contended that the removal of petitioner without conducting enquiry and without affording an opportunity is a serious illegality, requested to set aside the same.
No counter is filed by the respondents.
W.P.No.4412 of 2021:
The petitioner herein challenged the proceedings Rc.No.391/HGs.Estt/2019-3 dated 18.11.2020 issued by respondent No.3.
The petitioner was removed from Home Guards Organisation on the ground that while he was discharging duties in the unit attached to B.S.N.L., Penugonda, West Godavari District, he was implicated in Crime No. 153 of 2006 of Penugonda Police Station registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C.
Based on -registration of crime, respondent No.5 removed the petitioner from Home Guards Organisation. After conducting investigation, police filed charge sheet and the same was registered as C.C.No.65 of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, West Godavari District. After full-fledged MSM,J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 19 trial, the petitioner was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months on 22.01.2010.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.28 of 2010 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Past Track Court) Tanuku. The said appeal was allowed setting aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned II Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tanuku, and he was acquitted. But the petitioner was not reinstated into service despite the request made by the petitioner to reinstate him into service.
Thereupon, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 23.10.2019, but the same was not considered. As the respondents failed to pass appropriate order on the representation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.7501 of 2020 seeking writ of Mandamus to reinstate the petitioner into service considering the representation dated 23.10.2019, the said writ petition was disposed of directing respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 23.10.2019 and pass appropriate orders within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order. The petitioner made a representation to the authorities again in pursuance of the order in W.P.No.7501 of 2020 annexing copies of the judgment and calendar in C.C.No.65 of 2007 and Crl.A.No.28 of 2010, but without following procedure in accordance with law, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by order in Rc.No.391/HGs.Estt/2019-3 dated 18.11.2020, which is against the principles of natural justice and A.P.State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996, requested to set aside the same.
V, MSM.J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 20 The respondents did not file counter.
In all these petitions, the grievance of the petitioners and the respondents is one and the same. Therefore, I find that it is expedient to decide all these petitions by common order.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the petitions raised the following specific contentions.
(a) Removal/termination/dismissal of Home Guard cancelling their enrolment from the Home Guards Organisation on the basis of registration of crime though ended in acquittal is an illegality. Similarly, when explanation is given for their absence, removal/termination/dismissal on the ground of absence from duty is a serious illegality,
(b) Home Guard is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the I.P.C.; as per the provisions of the A.P.Home Guards Act, 1948, they cannot be removed from service except by affording an opportunity to explain the reason for their absence and without conducting an enquiry in view of the protection provided under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
(c) The petitioners are holding civil post though they are allegedly enrolled as members of Home Guards Organisation and failure to follow the procedure prescribed under rules and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India vitiates the termination/removal/dismissal of the Home Guard from service. On this ground alone, the petitioners are liable to be reinstated into service setting aside the impugned orders of removal/termination/dismissal and they placed reliance on various judgments, which will be V MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 21 referred at appropriate stage.
Sri N.Aswartha Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services - I strenuously contended that the services conditions of Home Guards are governed by Chapter 52 of A.P.Police Manual. In all the orders while removing the petitioners from service, the respondents strictly complied with the rules for taking disciplinary action against the Home Guards. Apart from that Home Guards services are only voluntarily services on payment of honorarium and they cannot be considered as members of Civil services, thereby, they cannot claim any protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Chapter 52 of the A.P.Police Manual not only deals with service conditions of Home Guards, but also deals with discipline and administration. The officers of the police who are in charge of home guards and the civilians who hold ranks in the home guards organisation should treat the home guards as volunteers and not as subordinates and that they can be removed by strictly following the procedure prescribed under the Home Guards Act. The main requirement is reasonable opportunity be afforded to the Home Guard before removal by competent authority. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they are holding civil post to claim protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and their services are totally governed by A.P.Police Manual. In all the cases, petitioners were served with notice to explain the reason either for their absence or for their alleged involvement in criminal cases etc, though they were ended in acquittal. Thereby, the procedure prescribed under Home Guards Act and rules adopted, the procedure prescribed under A.P. Police Manual is strictly complied with, therefore, the petitioners are disentitled to claim any V. .2 r' MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 22 relief in the present petitions and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Considering rival contentions, perusing the material available on record, the points that arose for consideration are:
(1) Whether the appointment, qualification and service conditions are governed by A.P.Police Manual? If not, what is the procedure to be followed for taking disciplinary action?
(2) Whether the Home Guards are holding civil post in State Service? If so, whether the impugned proceedings to terminate/removal/dismissal of Home Guards cancelling their enrolment in the Home Guards Organisation without conducting any enquiry, is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India?
(3) Whether the involvement and acquittal of the petitioners in W.P.Nos.l72, 2376, 24946, 14214 and 16990 of 2020, W.P.Nos.82S, 3528, 5136, and 4412 of 2021 is a ground to reinstate the petitioners into Home Guards Organisation restoring their enrolment setting aside the impugned proceedings issued by the respondents terminating/dismissal/remoxnng the petitioners?
(4) Whether the explanation offered by the petitioners in W.P.No.16218, 15611 of 2019, W.P.Nos.2412, 23873, 12149 of 2020 and W.P.No. 1316, 4825 of 2021 for their absence or misconduct is sufficient to reinstate them into service as Home Guards setting aside the impugned orders of the respondents terminating/dismissing/removing the petitioners? If so, whether the enrolment of the petitioners be restored in the Home Guards Organisation?
(5) Whether the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police is competent to pass the impugned orders in terms of Rule 7 of the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949 (adopted by the State by the A.P.Adaptation of X MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 23 Laws Order 1957)? If not, whether the order passed by the Commissioner of Police/Superintendent of Police is liable to be set aside?
POINT No.l:
Undisputedly, the petitioners were enrolled as Home Guards
in the A.P.Home Guards Organisation on different dates and
working in different units. The enrolment of Home Guards is
governed by the Madras Home Guards Act, which was adopted by the State of Andhra Pradesh after its bifurcation from Madras State.
Therefore, the service conditions and disciplinary proceedings against those Home Guards enrolled in the Home Guards Organisation are governed by A.P.Home Guards Act, 1948.
Though the State of Andhra Pradesh adopted Madras Home Guards Act on its separation from Unified State of Madras, the rules were deemed to be adopted by virtue of the A.P. Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P.No.35460 of 2013 and batch held that the Rules of 1949 were framed in exercise of the power conferred by Section 10 of the parent Act. These rules were applicable to the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh and in consequence, they are presently applicable in the newly formed State of Telangana.
The judgment of the Division Bench (referred above) attained finality, consequently, it can safely be concluded that in the present batch of cases, the Home Guards are governed by A.P.Home Guards Act and the rules framed under Madras Home Guards Act.
The major contention of the petitioners is that they are governed by the Home Guards Act, whereas Sri Ashwartha MSM,J WP No. 162 I 8_2019 and batch 24 Narayana, learned Government Pleader for Services-1 contended that the Home Guards Act and rules framed under the Madras Home Guards Act has no application, but they are governed by A.P.Police Manual chapter 52. Chapter 52 of the A.P.Police Manual deals with Home Guards Organisation. However, these rules are frame,d under the A.P.Police Act, but the police Act has no application .to the Home Guards Organisation. Merely because, the State has framed A.P.Police Manual governing the service conditions of Home Guards incorporating Chapter 52 without framing any rules separately under the A.P.Home Guards Act would not enure any benefit to the State. Though the Home Guards are under control of police officials, they cannot be considered to be part of police organisation, it is a separate organisation consisting of volunteers, who are called as Home Guards. All the volunteers with prescribed qualifications are given initial training of such nature and duration as laid down in the A.P.Police Manual. But very framing of guidelines governing enrolment of volunteers in the Home Guards Organisation fixing strength, enrolment and eligibility for recruitment of Home Guards, categories for the purpose of selection of Home Guards and the procedure for selection, discipline and administration, they have nothing to do with the Home Guards Act and these rules were not framed exercising power under Section 10 of the A.P.Home Guards Act.
Therefore, the standing orders in A.P.Police Manual are not the rules framed by exercising power under Section 10 of the A.P.Home Guards Act. Thereby, Chapter 52 of the A.P.Police Manual cannot be applied to govern the conditions of enrolment and discipline in the Home Guards Organisation. Hence, the contention MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 25 of the learned Government Pleader for Services - I is hereby rejected while holding that the petitioners are not governed by Chapter 52 of the A.P.Police Manual. Accordingly, the point is held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
POIN T No.2.
The major contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are public servants in terms of Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act. Conditions of enrolment, discipline, etc. are governed by the Act and rules framed thereunder. Apart from that they are holding civil post in the organisation, their enrolment cannot be cancelled and they cannot be removed or terminated from Home Guards Organisation without conducting necessary enquiry and if Home Guards are removed from the Home Guards Organisation cancelling their enrolment, it is violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Removal without conducting necessary enquiry is a serious illegality, thereby the orders passed by the respondents in all the petitions without conducting any enquiry is a serious illegality and violative of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
As seen from the Chapter 52 of the A.P.Police Manual or from the A.P.Home Guards Act and Madras Home Guards Rules, the civilians can be enrolled as volunteers to serve the State on payment of remuneration. Their enrolment was initially for three years, which can be extended from time to time till attaining the age of 60 years. Therefore, the objection raised before this Court is that when the members of the Organisation serving to the State on receipt of remuneration, they can be considered as persons holding Civil post though they are civilians as they undergone necessary selection MSM,J WP No. 162 18 2019 and batch 26 process and enrolment certificates were issued to them and that they are governed by the A.P.Home Guards Act and rules framed thereunder or rules impliedly adopted by the State. No doubt, Home Guards are public servants for the purpose of Section 21 of the I.P.C. and as per Section 11 of the A.P.Home Gurads Act, they are deemed to be public seiwants for all purposes in view of the specific contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions that the petitioners are persons holding civil post and the same is denied by the learned Government Pleader for Services - I contending that the service of the Home Guards is voluntary service rendered by the civilians on their enrolment in the Home Guards Organisation and only requirement to remove them is to issue of show-cause notice, calling for explanation and passing of final order and the competent authority can remove them by passing appropriate reasoned order, against which an appeal lies to the D.G.P. of the State.
The word "civil post' is not defined anywhere both in the Home Guards Act or in the A.P.Police Manual or in any law.
There is no formal definition of the word "post" or "civil post". A post denotes an office. A post under the State is an office or position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached; an office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post. (Vide: State of Assam v. Kana.k Chandra Dutta^, Superintendent of Post Offices v. P.K.RaJammaP>, U.P.S.C. v.
Girish dayantilal VaghelaP)
" AIR 1967 SC 884
" AIR 1977 SC 1677
AIR 2006 SC 1165
MSM,J ^
WP No. 16218_2019 and batch W
27
The Supreme Court also laid down certain tests to determine whether the person is holding Civil post or not. The true test for determination of the question whether a person is holding a civil post IS a member of Civil Service is the existence of a relationship of or master and servant between the State and the person holding the post under it and the existence of such relationship is dependent upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the post, Its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of its wages and remuneration as held by the Apex Court i in State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal KeshavlaU and State of U.P. V. A.N.Singh^ The expression "civil post" under a State means that the post is under the control of the State, that is, the State can abolish the post if it so desires or the State can regulate the conditions subject to which the post is or will be held. The real test is the immediate or ultimate control which is exercised by the State with regard to the post in question. (Vide: Lachmi V. Military Secretary to Governor of Bihar^) The expression "civil post means an appointment to an office or employment on the civil side of the administration as distinguished from the military side. (Vide: Sher Singh v. State of M.PJO) Even a civilian, holding a post in a department connected with defence such as Military Engineering Service or Military Farm or an ' AIR 1981 sc 53 ® AIR 1965 SC 360 ''air 1956 Pat 398.
AIR 1955 Nag 175
MSM„I
WPNo.16218 2019 and batch
28
ordnance factory or a naval base" cannot claim any right under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, even if he is not governed by the laws of armed forces because he is not a member of civil service of the Union or holding a civil post under the Union as held by the Apex Court in "Lekh Raj Khurana v. Union of India 11"
A civil post outside the regularly constituted service does not carry a definite rate of pay; he may be paid on commission basis; the post need not be whole time, it may be part time and the holder may be free to engage himself in other activities. What is important is the existence of the master--servant relationship. (Vide: State of Qujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal (referred supra) and Mathurdas v. S.D.Munshaw^^) Keeping in view the test laid down by various Courts including shall now the Apex Court in the judgments (referred supra) I examine whether the petitioners would fall within the meaning of "holders of civil post".
The test laid down in State of Gujarat v. Ramanlal Keshavlal and Lachmi v. Military Secretary to Governor of Bihar (referred supra) are relevant for deciding this issue.
There must be existence of relationship of 'master' and who 'servant' between the holder of the post and the person, engaged him/her. The existence of such relationship is depending upon the right of the State to select and appoint the holder of the control the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, right to manner of doing work and payment for it, etc. Thus, the ultimate control, which is exercised by the State with regard to the post in AIR 1971 SC2111 AIR 1981 SC 53 r MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 29 question, is a relevant factor to decide the present issue.
Home Guards Organisation is constituted under Section 3 of the Act, and appointment of officers. According to Section 3 of the Act, the State may constitute for each or the areas specified in Section 1 (3) (b), and for each of the other areas notified under Section 1 (3) (c), a volunteer body called the Home Guards", every member of which shall have such powers and discharge such duties in relation to the protection of persons, the security of property, and the preservation of public order or tranquillity as may be assigned to him by or under this Act. The State Government or any person empowered by them in this behalf may appoint as many officers as the State Government may consider necessary for the proper governance and conduct of the Horne Guards; one of the officers so appointed may be Commandant for all the Home Guards of the State.
Section 4 of the Act deals with appointment and removal of Home Guards. Section 5 of the Act deals with period of service and discharge. Section 6 of the Act deals with 'calling out of Home Guards'. Powers, privileges and protection of Home Guards are governed by Section 7 of the Act. Section 8 of the Act conferred power on the State officers or the police officers to have control on the Home Guards, when called out under Section 6 in aid Of the police force. 'Penalties' to be imposed against Home Guards for their failure to discharge any of the duties entrusted to them are specified in Section 9 of the Act. Thus, the Act itself is a complete code deals with constitution. appointment and removal of Home Guards, control of Home Guards etc. Rules were required to be framed by the State Government, but no rules were framed separately, but at the MSM.J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 30 same time not specifically adopted the rules framed under the Madras Home Guards Act. The State is empowered to frame rules without prejudice without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for or regulate all matters required or allowed by this Act to be prescribed; the exercise by any police officer or any officer of the Home Guards of the powers conferred by Section 6 on the Commissioner of Police, or the District Superintendent of Police concerned, as the case may be; the exercise of control by officers of the police force over Home Guards when acting in aid of the police force; the organisation. appointment.
discipline, training, arms, accoutrements and clothing.
conditions of service, powers and duties of Home Guards; the exercise by Home Guards of any of the powers exercisable under
- sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. Here it appears that the State did not notify any rules in the A.P. Gazette, but the rules were adopted by the A.P. Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957. Therefore, the the Madras Home Guards Rules will hold the field governing service conditions, discipline etc. A bare look at the provisions of the Act and Rules framed under the Madras Home Guards Act adopted by the A.P.Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957, it is clear that Home Guards are under the direct control of the State though it is styled as Home Guards Organisation consisting of volunteers, who enrolled their names as and Home Guards. However, they are being paid remuneration being provided uniform, including discipline and administrative control.
A similar question came up before the Allahabad High Court MSM.J c WP No.l6218_2019 and batch 31 in "SuraJ Prasad Tiwari v. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur^^". The learned Single Judge discussed about the position of the Home Guards held as follows:
"The expression 'civil post', as occurring in Articles 310 and 311 of the Constitution of India, has not been denned. This connotation, however, has been subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court as well as other High Courts on several occasions. The expression 'civil post', prima facie, means, an appointment or office on the civil side of the administration as distinguished from, a post under the Defence Forces. The only persons, who are excluded from the purview of Article 311(1) {which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions under Article 310(1) are-(a) members of the Defence Services, and (b) persons holding any post connected with defence. All persons, excepting the above two Classes, who hold any post under the Union or a State, hold a 'civil post'. There are broadly two tests for determining the question whether a person holds a 'civil post'-- (1) whether the person is employed to perform duties and functions which fall within the sphere of activities, duties and functions of the State and (2) whether the person claiming to be the holder of a 'civil post' is under the employment and administrative control of the State, as regards his appointment and other terms of employment, as well as his work and conduct. It is immaterial whether the employee is a member of any of the Civil Service or whether the Civil Services Rules are applicable to him or not. This aspect of the matter has been elaborately discussed in "Nagendra v. Commissioner^'*" and "Brij Nandan v. State of Bihar*^". Similarly, whether remuneration is paid or not, is immaterial as has been held in "dayanti Prasad v. State of U. P. i6"
and Rems V. Province of Bengal*^", provided the person has been employed by the Union or State to a post for the discharge of public duties, not connected with defence. A 'post', in this context, denotes an office. A post under the State is an office or a position to which duties, in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office or position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and Independently of the holder of the post. A 'post' under the State means a 'post' under the administrative control of the State. Sometimes, a question for determination arises whether a relationship of 'master and servant' exists between the Government and employee in question and this fact is to be determined on a consideration of all the relevant circumstances in each case. In "Pradyat v. Chief Justice*^". It was observed that, in general, selection by the employer coupled with 11 1998 (3) AWC 1622 AIR 1955 Cal 56 15 AIR 1955 Pat 353 16 AIR 1951 All 793 17 1953 (57) WM 767 (1955) 2 SCR 1331 V--
MSM,J
WP No. 16218 2019 and batch
32
payment by him or remuneration or wages, the right to control the method of work and power to suspend or remove from employment . are Indicative of the relation of master and servant. But, co-existence of all the Indicia is not predicated in every case to make the relation one of master and servant.
Ordinarily, the right of an employer to control the employee of doing the work and the power of superintendence and control may be treated as strongly Indicative of the relation which Imports the power not only to direct the doing of some work but the power to direct the manner tn which the work is to be done. In "Shiv Nandan v. Punjab National Bantc^^" and "Piyare Lai v. Commissioner of Income Tax^o". It was held that if the employer has that and servant as power, prima facie, the relation is that of master distinguished from that of an Independent contractor. On the other hand, if the test of administrative control and the relationship of master and servant is established, a fact that the holder does not enjoy a definite rate of pay, but works on commission or is a part time employee or that he is protected by Industrial and Labour law, does not exclude him from the category of the holder of a 'civil post' under the Government.
Without burdening this judgment with the plethora of rulings on the point, suffice it to make a reference to a celebrated decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in "State of Assam and others v. Kanak Chandra Dutta" (referred supra). In that case, the question was whether a Mauzadar in Assam who is known as a revenue contractor. Is the holder of a 'civil post' and consequently, a public servant. The primary duty of a Mauzadar was to collect land revenue and other governmental dues with the collection of which he is entrusted. He is responsible for the collection of toll tax, house tax, Tahabazarl, grazing fees and forest dues. He undertook to pay into the Treasury the full amount of all Instalments of land revenue and local rates Included in the zamabandl and all the house tax, toll tax and fees, within one month of the date on which they fall due for grazing payment. In regard to land revenue, house dues are confined to collection and he is not concerned with Us assessment, the settlement of land and the instructions checking of maps or assessment papers. There are executive contained in Assam Land Revenue Manual providing for method of selection. appointment and dismissal of a Mauzadar. the dues and emoluments of the office and the registers to be kept and maintained by him. A Mauzadar is generally an influential and well-to-do resident of the Mauza. He may be appointed or dismissed by Depvity Commissioner subject to the on his Commissioner's approval and suspended by Deputy Commissioner authority. A Mauzadar's successor is ordinarily selected from amongst the members of his family. If a suitable heir of deceased Mauzadar is a minor, the post may be kept open for him for a period not exceeding three years and an agent being appointed in the meantime to carry on the duties of (1955) 1 CCR 1427 19 1963 SCR 669 20 r MSM,J WP No.l6218_2019 and batch 33 Mauzadar. Remuneration of a Mauzadar is generally by way of commission on the revenue local rates and grazing dues collected by him but he may also be paid a fixed salary. Judged in the light of the above facts, the Supreme Court held that the Mauzadar is a person holding a 'civil post' under the State within the meaning of Article 3 11 and there is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person acting as a Mauzadar. A Mauzadar was held to be entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution of India."
In the backdrop of the above legal position, learned Single Judge examined the provisions of the U.P. Home Guards Act to determine whether the Home Guards are the persons holding 'civil post', concluded that a close examination of the above provisions would make it abundantly clear that a Home Guard is employed by the State and is under its direct administrative control. There is no sphere of his employment and work. such as, appointment, function, duties, powers and privileges, which is left untouched and uncontrolled by the State Government. Due protection has been provided which is available to every public servant in the performance of his public duty. The primary function of a Home Guard is to serve as auxiliary to the police in times of emergency and for maintenance of public order and internal security. There is, thus, complete control over the work, function and duties of a Home Guard. It is not that any person who volunteers himself to work as Home Guard may be enrolled. There has to be scrutiny before making an appointment or enrolling a Home Guard. The power of suspension, termination or removal vests in the State Government.
A Home Guard cannot disobey the orders of the State Governme nt or desert his duties. In view of the various provisions contained in the Act, the position of a Home Guard is not that of a volunteer but of a public servant as has been specifically mentioned in Section 10 of the U.P.Home Guards Act (corresponding to Section 11 of the t>e--
MSM.J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 34 A. P.Home Guards Act) and as the position flows from the various other provisions of the Act.
The learned Single Judge also adverted to earlier judgments of Division Bench and finally concluded that Section 10 of the U.P.Act appears to have been enacted to include a Home Guard within the ambit of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. However, any question under Article 311 of the Constitution has to be determined with reference to the connotation of these words as appearing in the Constitution itself. The meaning of a term as appearing in the Constitution cannot be controlled or whittled down by any ordinary law. If a person holds a civil post, as contemplated by our Constitution, he cannot be excluded from the protection or privilege conferred upon him by a constitutional provision by the, simple expedient of excluding him from the definition of holder of 'civil post by an ordinary statutory provision. Therefore, learned single Judge concluded that the petitioner who is Company Commander is holding a civil post, therefore, entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
Two conflicting judgments were also considered in the "SuraJ Prasad Tiwari v. Zila Commandant, Home Guards^' (referred supra), i.e. Hashrath Singh Parihar v. State of U. P.21", in which the Court placed reliance on "Vibhuti Narain Singh v. State^^" and concluded that the post of Company Commander is a 'civil post' within the meaning of Article 311 and Company Commander cannot be removed from service without serving him a proper charge-sheet, without giving him an opportunity of hearing and since the order of removal of a Company Commander was in utter disregard and in 21 1997 (1) AWC 376 22 1986 UPLBEC 1130 t MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 35 Violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India, the order of removal was liable to be quashed.
Another Division Bench of the same High Court in "Abdul Hameed v. State of U. P. (Civil Misc. Writ No. 9028 of 1990) and in "Gulam Mohd. v. State of U.P. (Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 29824 of 1992 and 27675 of 1992)" have not noted the principle laid down m Dashruth Singh Parihar v. State of U. P. and "Vibhuti Narain Singh V. State" (Referred Supra).
In view of the conflict between two division bench judgments of the High Court of Allahabad, namely, Riasat ali v. State of U.P23" and an unreported judgment of another Division Bench in the case of "Ram Kumar v. State of U.P." Special Appeal No. 143 of 2012 decided on 5* April, 2012, a reference was made to full bench of Allahabad High Court (consisting of Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Abhinava Upadhya and Harsh Kumar) in "Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P 24 to set right the legal position on the issue whether the Home Guards are holding civil post, the full bench adverted to U.P.Home Guards Act, 1963, held as follows:
On a close scrutiny, the provisions relating to voluntary enlistment and enrollment under section 7 of the 1963 Act are clearly aimed at providing a supplementary help and to act as an accessory to the police forces of the state. One who gets enrolled, he stands enlisted as a part-timer as per section 11 of the 1963 act. A home guard so enlisted is a public servant as defined under section 2 1 of the IPC and the Acts performed during duty are protected under section 9(2) of the 1963 Act. On enlistment, a home guard receives a certificate of appointment as per section 7(2) thereof. A home guard is bound to serve whenever called upon to perform duties. It is thus a performance of public duty by someone who voluntarily applies for the same which is subject to enrollment and then being called upon to perform a prescribed duty."
Thus, a home guard is liable to serve and in default is also 23 24 2003 (4) AWC 3046 2018(11) ADJ 453 teBir MSM.J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 36 ■■'*1 subject to penal action. There are provisions of suspension and discharge from services. Payment of allowances is also prescribed with liberty to resign. Viewing the nature of the duties to be performed, a closer look at Section 4 of the U.P.Home Home Guards, 1963 Act is necessary. It will deal with the functions of the home guards. As per Section 4, they will serve as auxiliary to the police.
and, when required, help in maintaining public order and internal security; they will help the community in air raids, fires, floods, epidemics and other emergencies; they will function as an emergency force for such special tasks as may be prescribed; they will provide functional units for essential service; and they will perform such other duties, relating to any measure of public welfare as may be prescribed. A perusal thereof indicates that even though section 3 of the Act describes the Uttar Pradesh Home Guards as a volunteer force, yet their duties encompass a substantial area of policing, emergency and essential public services and other duties of importance as a measure of public welfare.
The question is, who can be described as the holder of a civil of post. This would be obviously dependent on the nature engagement, employment or appointment coupled with the nature of the services or duties to be performed. In ordinaiy parlance, a person, outside the defence services, engaged in the work of the state is a civil servant and he is said to be in civil service. As to who would be holder of a civil post, it would be apt to quote paragraph No.9 and paragraph No. 10 of the judgment in the case of "State of Assam V. Kanak Chandra Duttd' (referred supra) "9. The question is whether a Mauzadar is a person holding a civil post under the State within Art. 311 of the Constitution. There is no formal c WP No. 16218 MSM.J 2019 and batch 37 definition of "post" and "civil post". The sense in which they are used in the Services Chapter of Part XIV of the Constitution is indicated by their context and setting. A civil post is distinguished in Art. 310 from a post connected with defence; it is a post on the civil as distinguished from the defence side of the administration, an employment in a civil capacity under the Union or a State. See marginal notes of Art. 311. In Art. 311, a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State is mentioned separately, and a civil post means a post not connected with defence outside the regular civil services. A post is a service or employment. A person holding a post under a State is a person serving or employed under the State. See the marginal notes - to Arts. 309, 310 and 311. The heading and the subheading of Part XIV and Chapter I emphasise the element of service. There is a relationship of master and servant between the State and a person holding a post under it. The existence of this relationship is indicated by the State's right to select and appoint the holder of the post, its right to suspend and dismiss him, its right to control the manner and method of his doing the work and the payment by it of his wages or remuneration. A relationship of master and servant may be established by the presence of all or some of these indicia, in conjunction with other circumstances and it is a question of fact in each case whether there is such a relation between the State and the alleged holder of a post.
10. In the context of Arts. 309, 310 and 311, a post denotes an office. A person who holds a civil post under a State holds "office" during the pleasure of the Governor of the State, except as expressly provided by the Constitution. See Art. 310. A post under the State is an office or a position to which duties in connection with the affairs of the State are attached, an office or a position to which a person is appointed and which may exist apart from and independently of the holder of the post. Article 310(2) contemplates that a post may be abolished-and a person holding a post may be required to vacate the post, and it emphasises the idea of a post existing apart from the holder of the post. A post may be created before the appointment or simultaneously with it. A post is an employment, but every employment is not a post. A casual labourer is not the holder of a post. A post under the State means a post under the administrative control of the State. The State may create or abolish the post and may regulate the conditions of service of persons appointed to the post."
An elaborate discussion of judgments of two earlier division benches, the Full Bench also considered "Suraj Prasad Titvari v.
Zila Commandant, Home guards, Hamirpur^' (referred supra) and finally concluded as follows:
MSM.J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 38 "Having considered respective contentions at the Bar as well as the aforesaid judgments, we have no doubt that so long as Explanation attached to Section 10 of the Act continues on the Statute, even if a service or post has incidences, of 'civil service'/'civil post' as held by Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta (referred supra) the statutory declaration that post of Home Guard is not a civil post, cannot be ignored. The said statutory provision (Explanation to Section 10 of the Act) has to be given purposeful meaning and to be duly honoured. In our humble but considered opinion, there is no conflict between Article 311, Constitution of India and said Section 10 with its Explanation."
In "Suraj Prasad Tiwari v. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur" (referred supra) adopted the reasoning given in the earlier judgment in "Vibhuti Narain Singh v. State" (referred supra) and referred to Article 311 and held that Home Guards under the Act hold a civil post. However, in para 12 of the reported judgment in the case of "Suraj Prasad Tiwari v. Zila Commandant, Home Guards, Hamirpur" (referred supra) learned Single Judge did not appreciate that even 'intents' and 'features' of service justify declaration of it as a civil service or post, but it cannot be treated as such if legislature specifically through legislative enactment declares it not to be a civil service/civil post, and consequently, protection of Article 311 cannot be taken resort to Article 311 of the Constitution of India to treat it as a eivil service or a civil post.
Thus, the reason for arriving at such conclusion by the full bench is the statutory explanation to section 10 of U.P. Home Guards Aet, 1963, otherwise it would fall within the definition of holder of eivil post as observed above.
The Full Beneh of the Allahabad High Court is clear that only due to statutory provision, they gave purposeful meaning and concluded that the home guard is not a civil post, otherwise it would attract the prineiple laid down in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra V,.
r MSM,J
WP No. 16218 2019 and batch
39
Dutta (referred supra). Thus, only on aecount of explanation to
section 10, the full bench concluded that the home guards are not holders of civil post.
In "Sarojni Devi V. Deputy Commandant General, Home Guards Head Quarter^^ ', the High Court of Allahabad, concluded that the Home Guards are holders of Civil Post.
In view of the judgment of the Pull Bench Judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in "Rajveer Singh V. State of U.P." (referred supra), tough not binging precedent, it is appropriate to advert to the provisions of Section 10 of the U.P.Home Guards Act, 1963 and Section 11 of the A.P. Home Guards Act as they are corresponding to one another.
Section 10 of The U.P.Home Section 11 of The A.P.Home Guards Act, 1963 Guards Act, 1948
10. Home Guards To Be Public 11- Home Guards To Be Public Servants But Not Civil Servants. Servants:
- A Home Guard acting in the Home Guards acting in discharge of his functions under the exercise of their powers or this Act shall be deemed to be a the discharge of their duties public servant within the under this Act shall be deemed meaning of Section 21 of the to be public servants within the Indian Penal Code. meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (Central Act Explanation A Home Guard 45 of 1860).
shall not be deemed to be a
holder of a eivil post merely by
reasons of his enrolment as
Home Guards.
A comparison of these two provisions of U.P.Home Guards, 1963 and the A.P.Home Guards Act, 1948 conspicuously, explanation annexed to Section 10 of The U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963 is missing in A.P.Home Guards Act, 1948. Thus, in the absence, of statutoiy clarification by way of explanation to Section
11 of the A.P. Home Guards Act by applying principle laid down ir in 'State Of Assam V. Kanak Chandra Dutta" (referred supra). Home 25 2016(7)ADJ728 MSM.J WP No. 16218^2019 and batch 40 Guards can be described as holders of civil post.
The main contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services
- I is that services of Home Guards is voluntary in nature, As seen from the provisions of the A.P.Home Guards Act, 1948, it appears that the services of home guards are voluntary in nature, but State prescribed certain norms for selection, fixing payment of salary etc., it is difficult to hold that their services are voluntary in nature.
Recently, notification for recruitment of Home Guards was issued m Y.S.R.Kadapa District specifying certain standards h.
m different trades. The following Home Guards posts are notified for selection in different trades with the specific eligibility and standards.
SI.No. Details of Employment Number of Vacancies 1 Computer operator/programmer 11 2 Sanitation/Maintenance staff 7 3 Drivers 15 4 Cooks 10 5 Lab Technician (Pathologist) 5 6 Gardner 10 7 Electrician 5 8 Plumber 5 9 A.C. Mechanic 2 10 Diesel Mechanic 11 Photo/Videographer Editor 2 12 Pharmacist 2 Total 75 The following conditions are prescribed for selection of the said posts.
Age: Male and Female candidates must be in the age group of 18 to 50 years.
Educational qualifications: Must have passed S.S.C. or 7^^ class.
V. MSM,J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 41 Physical standards:
(1) Male candidates must have height of 165 cms (SC/ST and BC candidates must have height of 160 cms) (2) Female candidates must have height of 150 cms (SC/ST candidates must have 145 cms) Qualifying test:
Male candidates must complete 800 meters running race in 200 seconds.
Thus, it is clear from the notification, anybody cannot join as member of Home Guard Organisation, only who are qualified, having standards specified in the notification are to be selected as Home Guards or as member of Home Guards Organisation. The said selection is based on open competition inviting applications from the eligible candidates. Therefore, the respondents are following the normal procedure for selection of Home Guards like police recruitment. Therefore, it cannot be said to be a voluntary enrolment of members in the Home Guards Organisation, but strictly in accordance with the standards specified for selection of / Home Guards. Apart from the selection procedure specified in the notification, they are being honorarium of Rs.600/- per day and the same was enhanced to Rs.710/- per day as per G.O.Rt.No.876 Home (Budget) Department dated 12.10.2019. The Honorarium is being paid at the end of every month in lump sum, that itself is sufficient to conclude that the amount paid to the petitioners is a salary in disguise. Hence, in view of the procedure for selection stated above and payment of substantial amount at the end of every month, though styled it as Honorarium, discharging duties as para policing.
The Apex Court while considering the nature of services of MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 42 Home Guards under the State of Panjab and Haiyana Act i in Davinder Singh V. State Of Punjab^^'' held as follows:
"Even without going into the question whether the appellants are eligible for the protection under Article 311 of the Constitution, in our view, the respondents seem to have acted in an arbitrary manner by terminating the services of the appellants, who have been working as Home Guards for the last 15-17 years. They are all over-aged. They may find it difficult to find alternate employment. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the order of termination passed by the respondents dated 02.12.2004 and direct the respondents to reinstate the appellants as Home Guards without back wages.
In "Parshotam Lai Dhingra v. Union of India^^" the removal of members of Railway Board came up for consideration before the Apex Court and the Apex Court concluded that protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is applicable.
In 'Satyavir Singh v. Union of Indians', the Apex Court dealt with removal of members of Research and Analysis Wing (RAW), noted the principles laid down in Union of India v.
Tulsiram PateP^ " concluded that they are holders of Civil Post.
According to the principle laid down in the above judgment, persons who are holding civil post i.e. members of the RAW services cannot be removed except by conducting enquiry. Enquiry under clause (2) of Article 311 gives a Constitutional mandate to the principle or natural justice and the audi alteram partem rule by providing that a civil servant shall not be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank until after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charge against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
26(2010) 13 see 88 27 AIR 1958 Se 36 28 AIR 1986 se 555 29 AIR 1985 SC 1416 X.., r MSM,J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 43 The nature of this inquiry has been elaborately set out by the Apex Court in "Khem Chan.d v. The Union of Indid^o" and even after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, the inquiry required by Clause (2) of Article 311 would be the same except that it would not be necessary to give to a civil servant an opportunity to make a representation with respect to the penalty proposed to be imposed upon him. As held in Suresh Koshy George v. The University of Kerala?^" and "Associate Cement Companies Ltd.
V. T.C. Shrivastava^^
apart from Article 311 prior to its
amendment by the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act,
1976, it is not necessary either under the ordinary law of the land or under industrial law to give a second opportunity to show cause against the penalty proposed to be impose upon an employee. If an inquiry held against a civil servant under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is unfair or biased or has been conducted in such manner as not to give him a fair or reasonable opportunity to defend himself, the principles of natural justice would be violated.
In view of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India, an inquiry shall be conducted to remove a person holding civil post, from his service. In "Satyavir Gingh v. Union of India" (referred supra), it is observed as follows:
"The police are the guardians of law and order. They stand guard at the border between the green valleys of law and order and the rough and hilly terrain of lawlessness and public disorder, and if these guards turn law breakers and create violent public disorder and incite others to do the same, one can only exclaim with Juvenal, "Quis custodietipsos! Custodes?"- "Who is to guard the guards themselves?" (Satires, VI, 347). In such a situation prompt and urgent action becomes necessary and the holding of an inquiry into the conduct of each individual member of the police force would 30 31 (1959)ILLJ167SC 32 [1969]1SCR317 AIR 1984 SC 1227 MSM,J WP No.l6218_2019and batch 44 not be expedient in the interest of the security of the State.
When, therefore, a number of members of the Madhya Pradesh District Police Force and the Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force, in order to obtain the release on bail of two of their colleagues who had been refused bail and remanded mto judicial custody because of an incident which took place at the annual Mela held at Gwalior in which one man was burnt alive, indulged in violent demonstrations and rioted at the Mela ground, attacked the police station at the Mela ground, ransacked it and forced the wireless operator to close down the wireless set and the situation became so dangerous that senior district and police officers had to approach the Judicial Magistrate at night to get the two arrested constables released on bail and, after discussion at a Cabinet meeting, a decision was taken and the advice of the Council of Ministers was tendered to the Governor of Madhya Pradesh who accepted it and issued orders of dismissal of these persons by applying Clause (c) of the second proviso to them, it cannot be said that the provisions of the said Clause (c) were not properly applied.
Similarly, when after these members of the Madhya Pradesh District Police Force and the Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force were dismissed, some other members of these Forces began cariying on an active propaganda against the Government, visiting various places in the State of Madhya Pradesh, holding secret meetings, distributing leaflets and inciting the constabulary in these places to rise against the administration as a body in protest against the action taken by the Government and, on such information being received, they were also dismissed by applying Clause (c) of the second proviso to them, it cannot be said that the said Clause (c) was not properly applied.
XIII. Remedies available to a Civil Servant A civil servant who has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by a^PPlying to his case one of the Clauses of the second proviso to Article 311(2) or an analogous service rule has two remedies available to him. These remedies are:
(i) the appropriate departmental remedy provided for in the relevant service rules, and
(ii) if still dissatisfied, invoking the court's power of judicial review."
Therefore, Civil servants who have been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying the second proviso to Article 311(2) or an analogous service rule the right to a full and complete inquiry, an appeal or revision unless a situation envisaged by the second proviso is prevailing at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision application etc. Thus, the Civil Servants cannot r MSM,J WP No. 16218^2019 and batch 45 be removed except by following the procedure contemplated under rules; in the absence of any rules, by following the principles of natural justice, an enquiry has to be conducted in view of the protection available to the Civil Servants under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
In the present facts of the cases, the main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the petitioners are civil Servants and their services are protected by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
As held above, taking into consideration of nature of duties, the procedure for appointment and selection process etc, in the absence of explanation, as in Section 10 of The U.P.Home Guards Act, 1963, to Section 11 of the A.P.Home Guards Act, they are deemed to be civil servants for all practical purposes by applying the tests laid down in State of Assam v, Kanak Chandra Dutta » (referred supra). When the petitioners are holders of civil post, the respondents must necessary follow the procedure prescribed under Rules specifically, but an enquiry is not contemplated under Rules except issue of show-cause notice.
According to Section 7 of the A.P.Home Guards Act, 1948, a Home Guard, when called out under Section 6, shall have the same powers, privileges and protection as on officer of the police appointed under the Hyderabad City Police Act or the A.P.District Police Act, 1859 as the case may be. No prosecution shall be instituted against a Home Guard in respect of any act done or purporting to be done in the exercise of his powers or the discharge of his duties as such except with the previous sanction of the Commissioner of Police in the Cities of Hyderabad and MSM,J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 46 Secunderabad and of the District Superintendent of Police in the district concerned.
Even if, Section 7 of the A.P.Home Guards Act, is considered they are entitled to claim protection like any other member of the police service appointed under the District Police Act. This is another distinct feature of services of Home Guards to consider their service as civil post.
According to Section 4 of the A.P. Home Guards Act, any person possessing the prescribed qualifications and willing to serve may be appointed as a Home Guard by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed, thereupon he shall have the powers, privileges and protection conferred and discharge the duties imposed, on a Home Guard by or under this Act. The prescribed authority may, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, suspend, dismiss or remove any Home Guard from his office and thereupon the certificate received by him shall cease to have effect.
The powers are vested on the competent authority to place the Home Guard under suspension, dismiss and remove him cancelling the certificate of appointment under clause (3) of Section 4 of the A.P.Home Guards Act. But the penalties prescribed under Section 9 of the A.P.Home Guards Act are relevant at this stage and it is extracted hereunder.
(1) If any Home Guard, without sufficient cause, neglects or refuses to obey the orders of any superior authority or officer, or fails to discharge any other duty, or deserts his post, or is guilty of any wilful breach or neglect of any provisions of this Act or any rule or lawful order made or issued thereunder by a competent authority, he shall be punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to two hundred and fifty rupees or with both.
(2) No prosecution shall be instituted against any Home Guard for any
t MSM,J
WP No. 16218 2019 and batch
47
offence punishable under sub-section (1), without the previous sanction of an officer empowered by the [State] Government in this behalf. (3) An offence punishable under sub- section (1) shall be cognizable.
There is little conflict between Section 4 and Section 9 regarding punishment to be imposed against a Home Guard.
Suspension or punishment of dismissal or removal is not for dereliction of duty or desertion of duty or is guilty of any wilful breach or neglect of any provisions of this Act. But what for such power is vested on the competent authority to dismiss or remove the Home Guard is not known.
In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 10 of Madras Home Guards Act, the rules were framed by the then Madras Government, which are made applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Rule 3 of the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949 prescribes recruitment and appointment as Home Guard. Rule 4 deals with 'organisation'. As per Rule 5, every home guard shall, on enrolment, be required to undergo a course of training for a period of not more than three months in physical exercise, arms drill, musketry, fire fighting, first aid and duties and powers of Home Guards to be performed. As per Rule 10, service of Home Guard will be entirely honorary and no pay shall be admissible to the members of the Home Guard. Duty allowance will however be admissible to the members of the Home Guard during the period of their training and when called out for duty at such rates as may be fixed by the Government from time to time.
Rule 7 deals with 'discipline". It reads as under.
7. Discipline:- (1) The Commandant shall comply with all orders i in regard to the training of Home Guards and their use in aid of the Police issued by the Commissioner of Police or the District Superintendent of Police concerned, as the case may be.
MSM.J WP No.l62I8_20l9and batch 48 (2) A Home Guard shall perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him and shall obey every order of his superior officers. (3) For the purposes of administration and discipline, the Home Guards shall.
subject to the provisions of Sub-rule (5) be under the control of their Commandant and, in his absence of the Adjutant or the other staff officers, if any, appointed to assist the Commandant.
(4) The Commandant may, for good and sufficient reasons, impose on any Home Guard any of the following penalties:-
(a) reprimand;
(b) suspension;
(c) reduction of rank;
(d) removal; and
(e) dismissal.
No appeal shall lie against any of these punishments. In all the cases of disciplinary action, a reasonable opportunity shall ordinarily be given to the delinquent Home Guard to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him, but in exceptional cases, when this course is not possible, it may be waived for special reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) The Commissioner of Police in the Presidency-town and the District Superintendent of Police concerned elsewhere may, for good and sufficient reasons, direct the suspension, removal or dismissal of a Home Guard from his office.
(6) The superintendence of the Home Guards shall be vested in the
Inspector General of Police and shall be exercised by him through the
Commissioner of Police in
the Presidency-town and through the Special Officer for the special armed police Units and the District Superintendent of Police concerned elsewhere.
Rule 7 of the Rules stipulates that for the purpose of administration and discipline, the Home Guards shall be under the control of the Commandant, and in his absence, under the control of the adjutant and other staff officers appointed if any. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Rules confers the power on the Commandant to impose on any Home Guard the penalties, namely, reprimand, suspension, reduction of rank, removal and dismissal. But, in all such cases, a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the delinquent Home Guard to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him. In exceptional cases, however, the issue of show cause notice can be waived for special reasons to be recorded MSM.J WP No. 16218^2019 and batch 49 in writing by the Commandant. If any penalty is imposed by the Commandant, it is final and no appeal is provided. It may also be mentioned that as per Rule 7(5) of the Rules, the Commissioner of Police in the Presidency-town and the District Superintendent of Police in Districts may direct the suspension, removal or dismissal of a Home Guard for good and sufficient reasons.
On the basis of the said Rule 7, the Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in the State of Andhra Pradesh v. P.Prasad Rao" (referred supra), set aside the dismissal/removal order of Home Guard for non-compliance of mandatory procedure of show-cause notice.
Section 4, 9 of the of the A.P. Home Guards Act coupled with Rule 7 of the Madras Home Guards Rules, deals with different types of penalties, but in what circumstances the order of suspension, dismissal or removal of Home Guard be imposed is not specified. The only requirement is to issue show-cause notice. In the present cases, show-cause notices were issued.
However, as discussed above, the Honie Guards are holders of Civil post by applying the principles laid down in "State of Assam V. Kana.k Chandra Dutta 99 and "Satyaxnr Singh v. Union of Indict (referred supra) as there is no explanation in the A.P.Home Guards Act as contained in U.P.Home Guards Act. For removal of Home Guard, necessary procedure prescribed under rules and Act is to be adhered to strictly.
The petitioners raised a specific contention that they are holding civil post and dismissal/removal/termination of their services without conducting enquiiy is hit by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Th^respondents refuted the said contention.
MSM.J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 50 but did not convince this Court that the petitioners are not holding civil post to fall within the definition of 'category of persons holding civil post'. Therefore, analysing the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments including constitutional bench judgment of " State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta" (referred supra), I hold that the petitioners/Home Guards are holding Civil Post, and no punishment be imposed against them without conducting any enquiry in view of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the point is held against the respondents and in favour of the petitioners holding that the Home Guards are holders of Civil Post and they cannot be removed from service except by conducting necessary enquiry.
POINT No.3:
The petitioners in W.P.Nos.l72, 2376, 24946, 14214 and
16990 of 2020, W.P.Nos.825, 3528, 5136, and 4412 of 2021
contended that they were arrayed as accused and after full-fledged trial, they were found not guilty; thereby removal/termination or dismissal/cancelling their certificate of enrolment as Home Guards is an illegality since there is every possibility of false implication in criminal cases by disgruntled fellow opponents and when they were found not guilty, they are entitled to be reinstated by renewing their certificate of enrolment with consequential benefits.
The respondents denied the said contention while contending that a show-cause notice was issued even before completion of criminal cases. Having dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioners, they were terminated/ removed from service.
When the petitioners were found not guilty for various offences after full-fledged trial, acquitting them honourably, denial c MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 51 of reinstatement to serve as Home Guards would amount to depriving their livelihood as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Dismissal/termination of the petitioners from Home Guards Organisation on the ground that they involved in criminal/calendar cases, without conducting any enquiry, is a grave illegality, and arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Even as seen from the impugned orders passed by the concerned authority for removal/ dismissal / termination or cancellation of enrolment of petitioners, orders must be supported by satisfactory reasons except passing a cryptic order. Therefore, the removal of the petitioners on the ground that they were arrayed as accused in calendar/ criminal cases is a grave illegality and those orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the point is held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents. POINT No.4.
Enrolment of the petitioners was cancelled or they were removed/terminated from the Home Guards on the ground that they were absent for long period without applying for any kind of leave or prior permission. They gave explanation to the show cause notice as to what prevented from attending the duty. But the respondents, under whom the petitioners are working, did not consider the reason assigned by the petitioners for their absence and terminated/removed the petitioners from service.
In the order of removal passed by the respondents, without even adverting to the reason for their explanation and reason mentioned therein, without recording their satisfaction that their absence as wilful, thereby removal of petitioners by Superintendent MSMJ WP No. 162 18 2019 and batch 52 of Police is against the principles of natural justice as the respondents are required to record reasons adverting to the explanation submitted by the petitioners to the show cause notice and record reasons for removal from the Home Guards Organisation, but none of the orders disclosed any reasons for removal except reiteration of cause shown in the show-cause notice for removal.
In "Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. V. The Union of Jndia^^", the Apex Court held that it is far too well settled that an authority who is in making an order in exercise of its quasi- judicial function, must record reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi- judicial order must be supported by reasons. The rule requiring reasons in support of a quasi- judicial order is as basic as following the principles of natural justice and the rule must be observed in its proper spirit.
In Rama Varma Bharathan Thampuran v. State of Kerala?"^", the Apex Court held that the functioning of the Board was quasi-judicial in character. One of the attributes of quasi judicial functioning is the recording of reasons in support of decisions taken and the other requirement is following the principles of natural justice and it requires reasons to be written for the conclusions made.
In "Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab^^", the Supreme Court, dealing with a service matter. held that "rubber-stamp reason" is not enough and that reasons "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual 33 AIR 1976 SC 1785 34 AIR 1979 SC 1918 35 (1979) 2 see 368 MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 53 conclusions.
In "H.H. Shri Stvamiji of Shri Amur Mutt v. Commr., Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Departments^", Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while giving the majority judgment, referred the principle in Latin, which runs as follows:
"Cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex."
The English version of the said is that:
. ... 'reason is the soul of the lauj, and when the reason of any particular law ceases, So does the law itself."
Summarising the above discussion, in The Collector v. K. KrishnavenvS'T", the Division Bench of Madras High Court culled out the following principles:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise Of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(1) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-makmg process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.36 37
(1979) 4 see 642 W.A.No.1995 of 2018 dated 0L09.2019 (unreported) MSM,J WP No.l6218_2019 and batch 54
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.
(1) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor.)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v.
University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"."
Even according to principles of natural justice, the authorities must disclose reasons for arriving at such conclusion and it is only to enable the person to know the reason for his termination or for MSM,J WP No. 16218_2019 and batch 55 passing any adverse order against him/her and it is a guide for the Appellate Authority to decide such an issue. The orders impugned in all the writ petitions attract serious penal consequences, which deprived the petitioners of their livelihood. When the respondents dealing with life of an individual, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, they have to deal with every allegation in the explanation justifying their action or inaction and answer the same. But, for one reason or the other, the respondents did not consider the explanations submitted by the petitioners in detail, but removed or terminated their enrolment in a routine manner by just recording that the explanation is "not satisfactory."
Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, the removal of the petitioners from Home Guards Organisation is against the principles of natural justice as the impugned orders are cryptic without recording any reason, more particularly explanation submitted by the petitioners. On this ground also, the orders impugned in these petitions are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this point is held in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
POINT No.5:
One of the contentions of the petitioners is that Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police is incompetent to pass such order of removal/dismissal/ termination as it is in violation of Section 4 of the Home Guards Act. Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 deals with appointment and removal of Home Guards. According to Section 4, subject to the s MSM.J 56 WP No.l6218_2019and batch provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder.
any person possessing the prescribed qualifications and willing to serve may be appointed as a Home Guard by such authority and in such manner may be prescribed. Clause (3) of Section 4 conferred power on as prescribed authority to suspend, dismiss or remove any Home Guard from his offices and thereupon the certificate received by him shall cease to have effect, but who IS i prescribed authority is not defined in the Act or Rules.
Whereas, sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Madras Home Guards Rules confers the power on the Commandant, for good and sufficient reasons, to impose on any Home Guard the penalties, namely, reprimand, suspension, reduction of rank, removal and dismissal. But, in all such cases, a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the delinquent Home Guard to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him. If Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act read with Rule 7 (4) of the Madras Home Guards Rules is taken into consideration, it can safely be concluded that the Commandant is competent to take appropriate action against the Home Guards for their misconduct in discharging their duties as Home Guards.
However, sub-rule (5) of Rule 4 of the Madras Home Guards Rules, vested power on the Commissioner of Police in the Presidency-
town and the District Superintendent of Police concerned elsewhere may, for good and sufficient reasons, direct the suspension, removal or dismissal of a Home Guard from his office.
The language employed in sub-rule (5) of Rule 7 i.e. "direct the suspension, removal, or dismissal assumes importance. The meaning of word "direct" is to point to; guide; order; command;
> MSM,J
V WP No.l6218_20l9 and batch
57
instruct, to advise, suggest, request". A close analysis of the
language used in Rule 7 (3) (4) and (5) of the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949, it is clear that the Commissioner in Presidency-tow n and Superintendent of Police concerned in other areas for sufficient and good reasons. direct the suspension, removal, or dismissal" of a Home Guards from his office. Therefore, the power of the Commissioner of Police or Superintendent of police IS recommendatory in nature and on the recommendation of Commissioner of Police in the presidency town and the District Superintendent of Police direct the Commandant as referred in sub rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Madras Home Guards Rules for suspension/removal or dismissal only, but the ultimate authority to remove/suspension/dismiss IS the Commandant not the Srrperintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police. Hence, the orders impugned in the petitioners are contrary to Rule 7 (3) (4) and (5) of the Madras Home Guards Rules, on this ground also the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.
In the show-cause notice, respondents referred to A.P.Police Manual to issue such removal order. The A.P.Police Manual or Police Standing Orders are not binding on the Home Guards since Home Guards are governed by A.P. Home Guards Act, 1948 and rules framed thereunder in view of the adoption of the enactment and rules by virtue of A.P. Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957. At best, the respondents can pass appropriate order subject to the Act and Rules governing the service of Home Guards. The point is answered accordingly.
MSM,J WP No. 16218 2019 and batch 58 In the result, the writ petitions are allowed setting aside the impugned proceedings while granting liberty to the respondents to pass appropriate orders subject to the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act and Rules governing the sendee oft.Home Guards Consequently, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners into service with immediate effect. No costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.
SD/-M.RAMESH BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon'ble Sri Justice M. Satyanarayana Murthy (For his Lordship's kind perusal) To,
1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District.
2. The Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
3. The Addl. Director General of Police, Home Guards, A.P. Vijayawada.
4. The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh, D.G.P.Office's Premises, Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
5. The Additional Director General of Police, (Home Guards) Police Head Quarters Mangalagiri, Guntur District.
6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Guards Unit, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
7. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Kurnool District.
8. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, Chittoor.
9. The Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, Eluru.
10. The Superintendent of Police, Anantapur District.
11. The Superintendent of Police, Guntur Urban, Guntur.
12. The Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District, Kadapa.
13. The Superintendent of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
14. The Inspector General of Police, Kome Guards, DGP Office, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. 522502
15. The Inspector General of Police, Rayalaseema Region, Kadapa District.
16. The Commandant, Home Guards, Andhra Region, Mangalagiri, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh.
17. The Commandant, Home Guards Organization, Visakhapatnam.
18. The Commanandant, Home Guards, O/o The Commissioner of Police, Visakhapatnam, Visakhapatnam District.
19. The Commandant, Home Guards, Vijayawada, Krishna District.
20. The Commandant (Home Guards), Visakhapatnam Andhra Pradesh.
21. The Commissioner of Police, Home Guards Andhra Region Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.
22. The Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
23. The Reserve Inspector (Admin), Home Guards Unit, Vijayawada City, Krishna District.
24. The Reserve Inspector, Home Guards Eluru, West Godavari District.
25. The Station House Officer, Chatrai Police Station, Chatrai Krishna District.
26. The Chairman cum Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Mangalagiri, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh.
27. 9 L.R. Copies.
28. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi.
29. The Secretary, A.P. Advocates Association Library, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad.
30. Two CCs to GP for Services - I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT
31. Two CCs to the GP for Home, High Court of A.P. [OUT]
32. One CC to SRI. K SRINIVASA PRASAD, Advocate [OPUC]
33. One CC to M/s. BURUGU SRILATHA, Advocate [OPUC]
34. One CC to SRI. Y N ANJANEYACHARYULU, Advocate [OPUC
35. One CC to SRI. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR, Advocate [OPUC]
36. One CC to SRI. B. KRISHNA, Advocate [OPUC'
37. One CC to SRI. TATA SINGAIAH GOUD, Advocate [OPUC]
38. One CC to SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI, Advocate [OPUC]
39. One CC to SRI. M R TAGORE, Advocate [OPUC]
40. One CC to SRI. MURALI LINCOLN, Advocate [OPUC]
41. One CC to SRI. T S N SUDHAKAR, Advocate [OPUC]
42. One CC to SRI. D S N V PRASAD BABU, Advocate [OPUC]
43. One CC to SRI. A. SREEDHAR, Advocate [OPUC]
44. One CC to Sri Harinath Reddy Somagutta, Advocate [OPUC]
45. One CC to Sri BVSS Balakrishna Ranjit, Advocate [OPUC]
46. Two CD Copies Chp Note: The designation of the petitioner is "Home Guard" is corrected as "Constable" in W.P.No.1316 of 2021 in order portion at page No.15 as per Court Order dated: 30-04-2025 in I.A.No.l of 2022. Substitute this amended order in place of earlier order which was despatched on 16-04-2021.
Sd/- M. RAMESH BABU DEPUTY REGISTRAR HIGH COURT DATED:01/04/2021 DATED:30/04/2025 AMENDED COMMON ORDER WRIT PETITION Nos: 16218, 15611 of 2019,172, 2376, aS 0 6 MAY 2025 o m 16990, 2412, 12149, 24946, 14214, 23873 OF 2020 ££esPATCH®2i^ AND 5136, 4825, 1316, 825, 3528, 4412 OF 2021 ALLOWING THE W.Ps.
WITHOUT COSTS