Allowed

Dasari Kumara Swamy v. State of Telangana

Telangana HC19 Dec 2023WP/26922/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by Home Guards petitioners challenging removal orders issued without enquiry. High Court set aside impugned orders and directed reinstatement subject to physical fitness but denied benefits of continuity of service and arrears. Petition disposed by consent.

What did the court decide?

Impugned removal proceedings set aside. Petitioners directed to be reinstated as Home Guards subject to physical fitness. No order as to costs.

Dasari Kumara Swamy Vs State of Telangana — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰¹ ]

¶2

¶3

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE^{OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF^DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND^{TWENTY THREE}

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA^KARTHIK

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO: 26922^OF2023

¶8

Between:

¶9

Dasari Kumara Swamv, S/o.Narsaiah^{Age- 40 years,Occ- HomeGuard,} (No.5795). Hvderabad^-Citv, Unit -ll (u/r) 0/o. Commandant, Home Guards brqanizaiion,' Goshamahdl,^{Hyderabad.Ryo. H.No.19-142,Karalmarks} Colony, Jai Shankar Bhupal^{pally, Districl.}

¶10

G. S6iyanarayana, S/o. Buchaiah,^Age-- -48 -years,^{Occ- Home} -Guard, (No.5499) Hvderabad Citv. Unit -ll, (u/i) 0/o. Commandant, Home Guards brganiza(ion, Goshamahll,^{Hyderatiad. Rl/o. Plot No. 84'RoadNo.7'} Telephone Colony, Boddupal,^Hyderabad.

¶11

T.Sridtrar, Sio.^{(rishna Age- 3i] years, Occ- Home Guard, (H^G No-8432)'} Hyderabad City, Unit^{-ll, (u/r) 0/o. Commandant,HomeGuards Organization,} G6shamahal, Hyderabad.^{HNo. 1840/ Plot No.8,Safilguda, Hyderabad} ' .

¶12

K. Venkatesirwiau, S/o. Chinna^{SubbarayuduAge- 37 years, Occ-Home} Guard, (No.7170), Hyderabad City,^{Unit -ll, (u/r) 0/o. Commandant,Home} Guards' Organiz'ation, Goshama'hal,^{l]VQqaba.d, R/o. Plot No' 497,} Sriramnagarl kondapur,^{SherilingampallyR.R.Di-strict.}

¶13

K. V. Chiithanya^{(umar, S/o. VeeiaiahAge-3Q years, occ- HomeGuard,} - (No.9OOO) , Hyterabad City, Unit -ll (u/r),-O/o. .Commandant, Home Guards brganizaiion,'Goshamahal,^{Hyderabad. Rl/oH.No. 12-1-508'Laxminagar} Ne-ar Rajushop, Lalapet,^{Secunderabad.}

¶14

o. K. iavah Kuilar, S7o. Satyanarayana^{Age 35 years, Occ- Home Guard'} (No.4926). Hvdeiabad Citv: Unit -t (ulr) OlO. Commandant, Home Guards brganizatbn,' Goshamahai,^{Hyderabad.'Fi/o. H.No. 7-74'Pentlavelly (V)'} Kollapur^(M), Nagarkurnool^District.

¶15

z. c. nllmelnri,ar {eddy, S/o.^{Ranga ReddyAge43 years,Occ- Home} -Guard' 1No.OOSol,^{HyderabadCity, Unit -ll (u/r)0/o. Commandant,HomeGrLards} broanizaiion.' Goshamahaj,^{Hvderabbd.R/o. H.No. 2-2o' 3156' 3rd floor,} Veikateshwara Nagar^{Colony, Uppal, Hyderabad.}

¶16

a. Rimicninari, S/o."Anantaiah^{ege- e+} lears,^{Occ- Home Guard, (No-8264)'} - nvaeiabad Citv. unit -ll (u/r) 0/o. Comrirandant, Home Guards Organization' G6shamahal, Hyderabad.^{Rl/o. H.No. 1-5,Rampally, Rampalle,(M) Bantaram,} Vikarabad District.

¶17

G.Suryakiran, S/o.Bheem^{Raj Age'40years, Occ-HomeGuard, (No 7280)} ' Hvder-abad Citv. Unit^{-ll (u/r)-0/o.} Commandant,^{Home Guards Organization,} Girshamahal, nideraOao.^{R/b. Chowdanpally, Rangareddy District}

¶18

G. Sampath Kumar, S/o.^Pichaiah, fgq^{50- years'Occ-HomeGuard,} - fi1" ssztit. Hvderabid Citv. Unit -ll (Under Removal) 0/o. Commandant, itome CubrOs Organization,^{Goshamahal, Hyderabad.R/o. H.No3-5-108,} lndranagar, Ramanthapur,^Hyderabad.

¶19

f r.p.-Ourg; irasad, S/o.^{SatyanarayanaAg9:32- years,Occ-Home} -Guard, 1No.sodzl^{, HydeiabadCity, Unit:tt (uk),-01o. Commandant' HomeGuards}

¶20

Organization, Goshamahal, Hyderabad. RJo. H.No.1-173,^(V) Singagudem (M) Lingapalem, Eluru. District

¶21

12.B.Raju, S/o B.Swamy, Age- 45 years, Occ- Home Guard, (No.114) Superintendent of Police Nizamabad (u/r) Fl/o. H.No.1 1-'l-1330, Chandrasekhar Colony, Subhashnagar, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶22

13.M. Sugunakar, S/o Sampath Age- 40 years, Occ- Home Guard, (No.500) , Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District,^(u/r) R/o. H.No.4-97,^(V) Dharmaram, (M) Hajipur, Adilabad District.

¶23

14.M. Nagesh, S/o Venkatappa Age- 34 years, Occ- Home Guard, (No.346) , Superintendent of Police, Mahabubnagar District, (uir) R/o. H.No.1045,^(V) Gudnumahal(M)Gundumahal,MahabubnagarDistrict.

¶24

...pETt,oNERs

¶25

AND

¶26

State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶27

The Director General of Police, (Home Guards), State of Telangana, Lakidika- Pool Hyderabad.

¶28

The Commissioner of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad City Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶29

The Commandant, O/o. the Commandant - Home Guards, Hyderabad City, Purani Haveli, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶30

The Superintending of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶31

The Superintending of Police, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶32

The Su^perintending of Police, Mahabu bnagar, Mahabubnagar _?5r,{Bbro."r,

¶33

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia 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-

¶34

A) To declare the entire action of the respondents, particularly the entire action of the 4th respondent in issuing the present impugned procds. of removal in (1) D.O.No. 9445 No. 275lA2lHGs-Hyd/2019, dated- 01-11-2019, (2) D.O.No. 8612015 No. 632/A2lHGs-Hyd/ 2015 dated- 11-5-2015, (3) D.O.No. 95/2014 No. 975lA2lHGs-Hydl 2O14 dated- 9-1O-2O14 ( ) D O.No. 5879, dated- 26-5-2016 (5) D.O.No. 14112OO9 dated- 23-09-2009 (6) D.O.No. 14',U2OO6 dated-23-9-2009, (7) D.O.No. 19012007 No. 784lA2lHGs-Hydl2OO7 dated-g-11-2007,(8) D.O.No. 95112014, No. 975/A2IHGs-Hydl2O14, dated-g-10-2014 (9) D.O.No. 101/2010 No. 887/A2lHGs-Hyd I 20 1 O dated-23-O2-20 1 O ( 1 0) D.O.No. 88120 1 5 No. 759/A2lHGsHyd 12015 dated-11-05-2015. (11) D.O.No.3097 A2lHGs-Hyd/202'l dated- 30-042021. OI the 4th respondent (12) D.O.No. 1O/2OO9 dated- 9-10-2009, of the sth respondent (13) D.O.No. 28l2OO3 No. 18/R|/HGs-ADD/2003 dated- 30-12-2003 sth respondent , (14) D.O.No. 91312017, No.189HGs/MBNRy2017 dated- 31-052017 of the 6th respondent wherein removing the services of the petitioners

¶35

without complying the^principals of natural^{justice, wilhout conducting enquiry is} stigmatic in nature, as well as contrary^{to law laid down by this Honourable court} in its judgment reported 2012 \1) ALD 76^(DB) r/w orders daled-^{24-4-2019in WP} Nos. 1249712018 and Batch and set aside or^{quash lhe above impugned orders} of removal. B).Further hold that the^{petilioners herein are entitled for re-} instalement into service as Home Guards^{with allied benefits, without reference to} the orders of removal, as said orders^{were issued even without complyingthe} prlnciples of natural^justice, as well as contrary to various iudgments^{of this} Honouble Court in the same subject^{malter.C) And consequently to direct the} respondents to forth with to re-instate the services^{of the petitionersas Home} Guards without reference to the above orders^{of termination}

¶36

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition,the High Courtmay be pleasedto} direct the respondents to^{forth with to re-instate the servicesof the petitioners as} Home Guards without reference to the^{ordersof termination issued vide procds in} in (1) D.O.No. 9445 No. 275tA2lHGs'Hyd/2019,^{dated- 01-11-2019,(2) D.O.No.} 86t2O15 No.632/A2lHGs-Hyd/ 2015^{dated- 11-5-2015,(3) D.O.No.95/2014No.} 97ltA2lHGs-Hydt 2O14 dated'^{9-1o-2O14(4) D.O.No. 5879, dated-26-5-2016(5)} D.O.No. 141t2\og dated- 23-09-2009^{(6) D.O.No.141120OOdated-23-9-2009, (7)} D.O.No. 1g1t2}o7 No.^{784lA2lHGs-Hycl/2007 dated-9-11-2007'(8)D.O.No.} 95tt2014, No.^{g7slA2lHcs-Hyd/2014,dated-g-10-2014(9) D.O.No. 101/2010No.} 887/A2lHGs-Hyd^{t 20 1 O dated-23 -02-201 O ( 1 0) D. O.No. 88/201 5 No.759/A2lHGs-} Hyd 12015 dated-1 1-05-2015.^{(11) D.O.No.3097 A2lHGs-Hvdl2O21dated- 30-04-} 2021. Of the 4th respondent^{(12) D.O.No.10/2009 dated- 9-10-2009, of the Sth} respondent (13) D.O.No.^{28t2OO3 No. '18lRl/HGs-ADD/2003dated- 30-12-2003} sth respondent ,⁽¹⁴⁾ D.O.No.^{91312017,No.189HGs/MBNRy2017dated-31-05-} 2017 of the 6th respondent and to^pass

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner:^SRI SANTHAPUR^{SATYANARAYANARAO}

¶39

Counsel for Respondents:^{GP FOR HOME}

¶40

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶41

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK

¶42

WRIT PETITION No.26922 OF 2o23

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

This Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief

¶45

'...to issue a Writ, order or direction more partianlarlg one in tLe nature of Wit of MANDAMUS

¶46

to declore the entire action of the respondents, partianlarlg the entire action of tE 4th respondent in issuing the present impugned procds. of remoual in (1)D.O.No.9445 No.275/ A2/ HGs-Hgd/ 2O19, dated O1.1 1.2O19, (2)D.O.No.86/ 2O15 No.632/42/ HGs HAd/2O15, dated 11.5.201s (3)D.O.No.95/2O14 No.975/42/HGs-Hgd/2O14, dated 9.10.2O14 (4)D.O.No.5879, dated 26.5.2016 (S)D.O.No.141/2OO9, dated 23.O9.2OO9 (6)D.O.No.141/2006, dated 23.9.2OO9, (7) D.O.No.19O/ 2OO7 No.784/ A2/ HGs-Hyd/ 20O7 dated 9.11.2007 (B)D.O.No.95/ 201a, No.975/A2/HGs-Hgd/2O14, dated 9.1O.2O14 (9) D.O.No.1O1/ 2o10 No.887/ A2/ HGs-Hgd/ 2O1O dated 2s.o2.2O10 (1o) D.O.No.88/2o15, No.759/A2/ HGs-Hgd/ 2O15, dated 11.O5.2O15, (11)D.O.No.3O97 A2/HGs-Hyd/2O21, dated 30.04.2021 Of the 4th respondent (12)D.O.No.1O/2OO9, dated 9.1O.2OO9 of the sth respondent (13)D.O.No.28/ 20O3, No.18/ RI/ HGsADD/ 2OO3, dated 3O.12.2OO3 Sth respond.ent (14) D.O. No.9 1 3/ 2 O 1 7, No. 1 89HGs/ MBNR/ 2O 1 7, dated 31.O5.2O17 of the 6th respondent wherein remouing the seruices of the petitioners without complging the principals of natural justie without conducting enquiry is stigmatic in nature as u.tell as contrary to law laid doutn bg this Honourable court in its judgment reported 2012 (1) ALD 76 (DB) r/w orders dated 24.4.2O19 in WP Nos,12497/ 2018 and Batch and set aside or quash the aboue impugned orders ' of remoual

¶47

Flrther lpld that the petitioners herein qre entitled for^{reinstatement into seruice as} Home Guards uith ollied benefits uithout reference to the orders of remoual as said orders utere issued euen uithout

¶48

¶49

complAing the principles of naturdl justice os well as contrary to uaious judgments of this Honouble Courl in the same subjecl matter

¶50

And consequentlA to direct the respondents to forth with to reinstate the seruices of the petitioners os Home Guards u.tithout reference to the aboue orders of termination ond to pass."

¶51

This Writ Petition is being disposed of with the consent of both the parties.

¶52

Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 7.

¶53

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted the issue in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the order of this Court, in W.P.No.I2497 of 2Ol8 and batch, daLed 24.O4.2079, and requested this Court to pass a similar order in the present writ petition also.

¶54

lrarned Government Pleader for Home has not disputed the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶55

Having regard to the submissions made by the respective parties and for the reasons alike in the order, dated 24.04.2019, in W.P.No. 12497 of 2O18 and batch, the impugned proceedings of removal passed by the respondents are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners as Home

¶56

¶57

Guards subject to their physical fitness. However, the peti[ioners are not entitled to any benefit of continuity of service, seniority and arrears of pay by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in WP.Nos.35460 of 2Ol3 and batch.

¶58

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶59

Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.

¶60

Sd/. P. PADMANABHA REDDY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

,r / sEcfloN #rrceR

To,

1 The Principal Secretary, Home Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad

¶65

2 The Director General of Police, (Home Guards), State of Telangana, Laki-dika- Pool Hyderabad.

¶66

3 The Commissioner of Police, State of Telangana, Hyderabad City Basheerbagh, Hyderabad

¶67

4 The Commandant, 0/o. the Commandant - Home Guards, Hyderabad City, Purani Haveli, Chatta Bazar, Hyderabad.

¶68

5 The Superintending of Police, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶69

6 The Superintending of Police, Adilabad, Adilabad District.

¶70

7 The Superintending of Police, Mahabubnagar, Mahabubnagar District. 8I One CC to Sri Santhapur Satyanarayana Rao Advocate [OPUCI Two CCs to GP For Home, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUTI (AQrywj$ a copy of order dated 24.01.2019 in W.P.No.12497 ot 201$ and batch)

10 Two CD Copies

MBC

,-3

HIGH COURT

DATED: 1911212023

ORDER

WP.No.26922 ot 2023

I $E STAI €
(
q
321 0EC 208 oz
"b.
* 4Q
t
Des pA.i c r,9

¶79

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION

%
*

WITHOUT COSTS

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND^{KUMAR STIAVILI}

¶85

W.P.Nos.12497.13487.13653'^13873.13878. 14165. 1417 2,t4228, 1467 9, t5812, 15835. 16016. d 16018 of 2018

¶86

¶87

Since the issue involved in all^these writ^petitionsis

¶88

one and the same, they are^{heard together and disposedof} by this common order.

¶89

The petitioners in all these writ^{petitions are} challenging the action of the respondents^{in passingorders} of removal without following the^{due processof law.}

¶90

Heard leamed counsel for^{the petitionersand learned} Govemment Pleader for Home^{appearing forthe} respondents.

¶91

It is the case of the petitioners^{that they were} appointed as Flome Guards^{in differentyears and since} then they have been discharging their^{duties to the utmost} satisfaction of their higher^{authorities. While discharging} their duties as such, owing^{to some domestic problems and} ill-health, they could not attend^{their duties for certain}

¶92

¶93

i I I I iI I I I it t I tI I i

¶94

t I Il I I I t !I I I I I

¶95

period. But, the respondents w'ithout conducting any enquiry and following due process of law, passed removal orders.

¶96

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. P.Prasad Rao and anothed wherein it was held that Rule 7(4) of Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949 (for short 'the Rules) mandates the respondents to give opportunity to the Home Guards before passing the orders of removal. He further contends that when some of the Home Guards whose senrices were removed have approached A.P.Administrative Tribunal, the Tribunal vide orders dated 25.04.201i in OA.Nos.1\SS/nB and batch was pleased to allow the OAs by setting^.aside the orders of removal and challenging the said orders when the State had carried those matters ro this Court by hling WP.No.35460/2013 and batch, the Division Bench of this

¶97

'^{zo rz} 1r;^elouo lony

r(:

I iII i! I I I

Court dismissed the said writ petitions vrde order dated 08.06.2018, conhrming the orders of the Tribunal. Leamed Counsel contends that appropriate orders be passed in these writ petitions by setting aside the orders of removal with a direction to reinstate the petitioners as Flome Guards, He also contends that the Division Bench while confirming the orders of Tribunal has held that the respondents/Homg Guards are not entitled for the benefrt of continuity of service, seniority and arrears ofpay.

¶102

Leamed Special Govemment Pleader for Services submits that the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the Judgment rendered by the Tribunal ln OA.No.1555/2013 and batch and also in WP.No.35460/2013 and batch, dated 08.06.2013 and contends that appropriate orders be passed. Leamed Government Pleader further contends that the case of the petitioners would be considered for reinstatement as Home Guards subject to their physical fitness.

¶103

¶104

I I I I I I t I , I! I IIi I I I ! I tI III I , t I I I I I I tI I I

¶105

Admittedly, in these writ petitions, Rule 7(4) of the Rules was not followed by the respondents and the issue raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the Judgment^{stated supra. This Court having considered the} rival submissions made by both the parties, is of the considered view that the respondents without giving any opportunity to the petitioners passed orders of removal and thereby contravened Rule 7(4) of the Rules, and as such, the impugned orders of removal are liable to be set aside.

¶106

Accordingly, the impugned orders of removal passed by the respondents are set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners as Home Guards subiect to their physical fitness. However, the petitioners are not entitled to any benefit of continuity of service, senioriry and arrears of pay by virtue of the orders passed by this Court in WP.Nos.35460/201i and batch.

¶107

With the above observations, all the writ petitions are allowed. No order as to costs.

¶108

¶109

i tII tt I I I I {I t I tI I II I t I I iil i iI I I ! I i iI II, I 1 i i I i I I T I, $ I i, ! I t I

¶110

Miscellaneous petitions, pending, if any, shall stand

¶111

closed.

¶112

JUSTICE^{ABHINANDKUMAR} SHAVILI 24rH April,2019 rkk