The High Court · 2025

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of ltrlandamus declaring that the action of the Respondent No.3 and 5 in non-considering the representations dt.0410912023 and 1210112024 submitted by the Petitioner herein, requesting the Authorities to revoke the suspension orders d1.07.07.2020 without conducting any inquiry till date and further did not specify the period of suspension or passed any orders of extension of suspension period or re-instate the Petitioners into duties in contrary to the judgements rendered by the constitutional Courts more particularly the Judgements of the I I Constitution Bench in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak,1992 (1) SCC 225 and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v.Union Of lndia through its Secretary, dated 16th February, 2015 also other Judgements on the strength of the judgements of Apex Court passed in the matters of service jurisprudence applicable to the facts of Home Guards, is as illegal, arbitrary. unjustified, as it is nothing but violation of principles of settled Law as per Articles 14 and 2'1 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently DIRECT the Respondents, more particularly Respondent Nos.3 and 5 herein to complete the inquiry with in stipulated time and pending disposal of this Writ Petition this Honourable Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent No.3,4 and 5 to re-instate the Petitioner into dulies and DIRECT the Respondent No.2 herein i.e., the Director General of Police to order for an independent PROBE to find out the truth or othenvise in FIR Nos. 383 of 2020, FIR No.351 of 2020 and FIR No.385 of 2020, registered by the then SHO, Hayathnagar PS. Rachakonda (lvlr. Surender). lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to DIRECT the Respondent No.2 i.e., the Director General of Police, Telangana State to order for an INDEPENDENT PROBE to find out the truth or otherwise in FIR No.383 ol 2O2O, FIR No.351 of 2020 and FIR No.385 of 2020, registered by the then SHO, Hanathnagar PS. Rachakonda (Mr.Surender). lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to DIRECT the Respondent No.3,4 and 5 to re-instate the Petitioner herein into duties by suspending the orders d1.07.O7.2020. Counsel for the Pelitioner : SRI M.V.S.SAl SHARATH Counsel forthe Respondents: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITIO N No.36 2O2 of 2o24 ORDER: Heard Sri MVS Sai Sharath, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents No'3 and 5 to consider the representations of the petitioner dated 04 -Og.2O23 and 12.01'2024 to revoke the suspension orders dated 07.07 .2O2O and, consequently, direct them to reinstate the petitioner into service.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard on 28'O2'2OO4' While the petitioner was in service, on 26'06'2020, an FIR No'383 of 2O2O was registered against the petitioner by the SHO' Hyathnagar and notice under Section al(A) was issued' As such' the petitioner was kept under suspension from 07 'O7 '2020' The petitioner gave a detailed explanation with all supporting documents on 27.O9.2O20 to the 1"' show-cause notice' dated 29.O7.2O2O issued by respondent No'5' Again, on 04'll'2O2O show-cause No.2 was issued to the petitioner stating that the I I I I I 2 respondent No.5 herein did not convince r.r.ith the written explanation sr-rbmitted on 27.O9.2O2O. On 21 .12.2O2O, the petitioner replic.d to the shou,-cause notice No.iZ.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that right from 2O2O onwarrls the petitioner has been under su spension and the authorities neither revoked the suspension orders nor Articles of c:harges were framed against the petitioner till date and such inaction by the respondent authorities is not sustainabie in [ar.r,. On 29.12.2O2O, 04.O9.2023 and finally, on 12.01.2024 the petitioner submitted representations to the respondent :rrrthorities to revoke his suspension orders and re- instate him into service, but till date, no action has been taken by the respondent authorities on the said representations. Accordingly, praS.ed to allow the Writ petition.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents, on instructions, submits that a Memo vide Rc.No.269/pR_ l/RCK/2O2O. dated: 21-O7-2O2O had been receivecl from the Office of the Commissioner of police, Rachakonda, wherein requested to take stringent disciplinar5z action against HG 6806, Sri. Manne Janga Reddy (petitioner herein), as a dispute 3 is in existence between coparceners of Aenugu family pertaining to their agricultural land located in Brahmanapally (v) Hayathnagar where the petitioner played pivotal role in creating nuisance and instigated his kith & kin to pressurize the SHO and created chaos in station house premises obstructing Sri' A' Satyanarayana, H.C. 2484 frorn performing his legitimate duties. Accordingly, the petitioner was airested and remanded to judicial custody after following due procedure' Based on the above report, a disciplinary action has been initiated against the petitioner by issuing Suspension (Jrder vide No' 42lHGs.Hyd 167612O2O, dated 07.O7'2O2O' On receipt of the abovesaidshow-causenotices,thepetitionersubmittedhis explanations, which are not at all convincing and appears to be farfromthetruth.However,therespondentauthoritieswould consider and pass appropriate orders if the petitioner makes a t l I t fresh representation.

6. Though petitioner submitted several representations' the respondent authorities tilt date did not take any action on the said representations. 4

7. Having regard to the submissions made bv the leamed counsel for respective parties, without going into the merits of the case, the petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation to the respondent authorities within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such representation being made by the petitioner, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of (OB) eight weeks therefrom.

8. With the above direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall bt'no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if aly, in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/-MOHD. ISMAIL bEP UTY REGISTRAR '--.."-- ', I]ECTION OFFICER \ To,

1. The Principal Secretary, (Home Department), Tel Telangana, Hyderabad. gana Secretariat, State of

2. The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad. 3. The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad City. 4. The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards Wing, 0/0. The Director General of Police, Lakdikapool, Hyderabad.

5. The Commandant of Home Guards, Hyderabad City Police, Goshamahal, Hyderabad.

6. One CC to SRI M.V.S.SAI SHARATH, Advocate. IOPUC] 7. Two CCs to GP FOR HOME, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] B. Two CD Copres. i** BSK GJP HIGH COURT DATED:0210412025 I ORDER WP.No.362(t2 of 2024 II o) u21 IJ AE C t' \\ t J o o I t ^i.-"^ 1rc'.ii-o I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS \\