High Court · 2025

...RES,.NDENTS Petition under Articre 226 of the constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particurarry one in the nature of writ of MANDAMUS by decraring the action of Respondent No. 2 in mechanica'y issuing the Impugned Memorandum dated 03.12.2024 bearing Rc. No' 252lHG-Es st-1t2o21 , confirming the order of Responderrt No. 5 removing the Petitioner from the service and the action of the Respondent No. 5 in issuing the Removal Order dated 11.07.2022 bearing C. No. 234iRl_HGsA/rrNpyi2O22, DO No' 32612022, without considering the acquittar of the petitioner, without issuing show-cause notice on the petitioner, conducting any enquiry and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as arbitrary, iflegar, unjust and contrary to the principles of Naturar Justice and Rure 7 of the Madras Home Guards Rures, 1948 and set aside the same, and consequenfly direct the Respondents to I l i l i I I I ,l I . I I ,l t: l. ; I i I I I I I l the roll of Home Guard Organizz:tion with all reinstate the Petitioner in consequential benefits. IA NO :1OF 2O25 PetitionunderSectionlSlcPCprayingthatinthecircumstancesstatedin theaffidavitfiledinsupportofthepetition,theHighcourtmaycepleasedto suspend the operation of the lmpugned Removal Order issued by tt e Respondent No. 5 dated 11 07 2022 bearing C No' 234IR|-HGsMNPY/2122' DO No 326t2022 and the lnpugned Memorandum daled 03 12'2024 beraring Rc 252lHG-Esst-l/202'1 issued bythe Respondent No' 2' No Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI S'KRISHNA SHARMA Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.5462 oF 20.2s ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking following relief:- "...to issue an appropiate Wit, order or d.irection more particttlarlg one in tl.Le nature of utit of mandamus bg declaing the action of Respondent No.2 in mechanically issuing the impugned memorandum, dated 03. 1 2. 202 4 beaing Rc. No. 2 52 / HG_Esst- 1 / 2 O2 1, confirming th,e order of Respondent No.5 remouing the Petitioner from the seruice and_ the action of the Respondent No-S in issuing th.e Remoual Ord_er d.ated 1 1.07.2022 bearing C.No.234/ RI_HGs/ WNpy/ 2022, DO.No.326/2O22 utthaut consid.eing tLe acquittal of the Petitioner, tuithout issuing shou.t cause notice on th,e Petitioner, conducting ang enquiry and. affording an opportunitg of heaing to the petitioner as arbitrary, illegal, unjust and contrary to the pinciples of Natural Justice and Rule 7 of the Madlas Home Guards Rules, 1948 and set aside the same and. consequentlg d_irect the Respondents to reinstate tLrc petitioner in the roll of Home Guard Organi,z,ation with all consequential benefits mag pass..."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard (HG.No.345) in the erstwhile Mahabubnagar Distric t uid.e order, dated 17.O2.2OO2 bearing D.O.No.S4 of 20O3. In view of pendency of criminal cases, the petitioner was removed from service I I I I I I i i by the Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar uide D.No.51 of 201 I , dated 17.O1,.2011 withor-rt serving a show cause notice, tt the petitioner. Subsequently, the petilioner submitted mu l',iple representations and considerinl; the compromise zrrtd acquittal in criminal cases, he was reinstated into service as Home Guard uide D'No'S 70 of 2Ol2 dated. Ott.O4.2Ol2 with General No.449' While so, a case was regislt:red against the petitioner in Crime No 28 of 2O2O for the alleged offences punishable under Ser:tions 3O7, 324, 323 rlw 34 of Indian Penal Code, 18(;0 at Kulkacherla Pol ice Station.

3. Learned c ounsel for the petitioner further subreitted that respondent No.5 issued an order, dated 24.O4.2O2O bearing C.No. t'+8/HGs/WNPY/202O (D.O.No.208 of 2O2O) placing the petitioner under suspension for his involvement in Cr.No.28 of 2O2O. The petitioner sublnitted representation to respondent No.4 explaining his non- involvement in the said crime and requesting reinstate into service. Howevr:r, respondent No.4 has not considert:d the representation. The suspension order issued by respondent No.S was a1s<, challenged by frling W.P.No.22177 of 2022 before this Hon'ble Court and this Court uid.e order, dated

06.06.2022 passed an interim order directing respondent No.4 to consider the representation, dated 05.01.2022 of the petitioner seeking to reinstate the petitionqr into service as a Home Guard. Inspite of interim direction of the Hon,ble Court to consider the petitioner,s representation, dated

05.OL.2022 seeking reinstatement, no action was taken by the respondents. In the meantime, respondent No.S issued the impugned removal order, dated 11.07.2022, bearing C.No.234lRI HGs/wNPy/2022, D.No.326 of 2022, by removing the petitioner from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization, Wanaparthy District with immediate effect.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that without following due procedure, the petitioner was removed from the service. Aggrieved by the same, again petitioner filed W.P.No.79722 of 2024 before this Hon,ble Court. The said writ petition was disposed on 06.11.2024 directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner,s representation, dated 18.06.2024 and 25.OT.2024. In view of this Court order, respondent No.2 issued impugned memorandum dated 03.12.2024, refused to consider the I t: l. representation and confirmed the removal order' Hence' the present writ Petition

5. Learned cortnsel for the petltloner further submitted that the petitioti,:r has been acquitted from all the earlier criminal cases.

6. The learnr:tl Government Pleader for Home appeetnng for the respondt:nts submitted that as on today, no crinrina'l cases are pendil-rg against the petitioner'

7. Having considered the rival submissions made b''' the learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered vieu.' that S.C.No 24 of 2022 in Crime No 28 of 2O2O of Kull<recherla Police Station, the petitioner f'rund not guilty ald u'as acquitted. As no cases are perLding against the peritioner as on today' Under the above said facts, the retrloval order cannot be sustained The impugned orctr:r, dated 03.12'2024 passed by the respondent Nc,. 2 as weil as the order dated I l 'O7 2022 passed by respondent No.s are liable to be set asidt' and they are accor<lingly set aside. The respondent authc'rities are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner, if he is t I I I I I I i I I I I I l' /, \ otherwise eligible, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. /TTRUE COPY// SD/-L. LAKSHMI BABU DEPUry REGISTRAR secnoru oFFICER To ariat Building, HYderabad, Hvderabad. Hvderabad. State of Tdlanqana -500 O22 Hyderabad Telangana State,

1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secr z. ine birector G-eneral of Police, Telangan€ State., 3. The lnspector General of Police, (Home Guards)' 4. iil;6;;rndant, o/o The Commandant Home Guards' Telangana' 5. Tt;i;ffi"tendent of Police, O/o Superintendent of Police' Wanaparthy' 6. d;;'UC 6's niG. kir s n un s HARMA, Ad vocate^[oPU c] ;. i;; d6r'L-Gi FoC noMre, Hign court for the siate of relansana' at I PSK. BS Hyderabad. [OUT] Wanaoarthv District. Two CD Copiesv HIGH COURT DATED:0310312025 ORDER WP.No.5462 of 2025 \ .l 1t{E SIA r,: To( c5 10 APR 2i[5 )f s parr'.H( o z I .1- I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS I , I I I I I I t I ' i I i i , I 1$