Dismissed

The Superintendent of Police, v. Putta Nagamma

Telangana HC11 Jul 2023WP/31/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petitions challenging Tribunal orders reinstating Home Guards were dismissed. The court held that removal without a proper show cause notice detailing charges violates Rule 7(4) of the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949, rendering the removal invalid. Reinstatement was ordered subject to a physical test, without benefits of continuity or back wages.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; respondent Home Guards to be reinstated after physical test without benefits of continuity, seniority, or arrears.

The Superintendent of Police, Vs Putta… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[3318 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA ,,AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

TUESDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 31 OF 20'17

¶7

Between:

¶8

'1 . The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad, District Adilabad-50400.1.

¶9

The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Lakdi-ka-pool, Hyderabad- 500 001.

¶10

. 3. The State of Telangana, rep by the Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad- 500 O22. i ...PETITIONERS/RESPONDENTS tN o.A.No.l466t2o14

¶11

AND

¶12

Putta Nagamma, W/o. Late Rajeshwar, 25ed about 29 years, Occ Ex. Home Guard, vide Home Guard No.95, RJo. Village Kamalapur,^post Seethagondi, tVlandal Gudihathnoor, Dist. Adilabad 504001.

¶13

... RespondenUApplicant in O.A. No.1466/2014

¶14

The Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad, Rep. by its Registrar.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

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 an order or writ particularly the one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" by calling for records relating to and connected with the order dated 26-02-2014 in O.A. No.1466/2014 on the file of Honble Andhra^pradesh Administralive Tribunal and to quash or set aside the same by holding it as erroneous and contrary to law.

¶17

l.A. NO: 1 OF 2O17(WPMP. NO: 33 OF 2017

¶18

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 suspend the orders of the "Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal" dated 26.02.2O14 in O.A.No.1466/2014, pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I

¶19

Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI S. CHANDRASEKHAR The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

¶21

THE HON', IT.,E SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUNIA.R IJHAVILI

¶22

AND

¶23

THE HON'B -I) SRI .TUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJ,EIiH\JTAR RAO

¶24

WRIT PETITION No.31 of ltOl7

¶25

ORDER: P.t tt t.on'bte Sn Justr.e AbhrLand KurrLar :iLLouitr)

¶26

When tl e matter is taken up for hearinp,, lcarn,, d (iovernment Pleader for I ervices-I, appearing for the petirio.rrtrs, has lairly concedec lla Lhe issr-rt raised in the present \'rit Petilion is squarcly cosc crl lty a judgment rendered by this llr. n'b1e Colrrt in Writ Petitlo:r^,{r,.f,5469 of 2Ol3 .rnd batch. (tatoc. OlJ.Oi).2018 and lhdt the r)rese rt Writ l,elition is also liable to bt dtsa.ir.scc.

¶27

A Lc trned Division Bcnch o[ this tlor'Lrl- L'r ]rr lrt Writ Pctition No.35 1(r0 ot 20 i3 and baLch, dated Oii.05.2 0 18 :ras lreLcl as unclea:

¶28

'()t, the a)xtr.,e atcrly.srs, LlLe Writ Pet fiorrs rrn dr.. nnssed t)ut su ie::t to the folLoutrl'Le cotlclitions:

¶29

I . The llrst respon.len Is epplic;lts trL qll tlLe ;,. (:.l-s.?.s .sh.lll t)e SU.1) ,,cl.ed to o plLLtsicqL test to .lscetlorn thei^- Jitnes. I c;fcre betng reinltt te7 tn seruice as IIotne Guarcls. At . cb,,:cttt e ancl iransp tr( nt. proccC.,re. sl:l:Ll. be adopte.cl bll tl1( Stqt,? ct; d its po[tce ,tffitiat : t,t tltis reqcttl and a[I c{esenirtg candial(ltes ::l.Lrtli ctgttttt Lte ,tqrc'Lk l. . rr Lhe rolL:, of tlte; l ic:rtrc Guu (ls Org.).n,zatlon

¶30

Enrollrq.ent r.,/ suc/r deseruutg ccLrtcitdLttes shctLl, ,lolL ( t) t, tLaL lloL)c tlte e,jli:Lr ol corjbnuLq upon tttent tlte bL,na.fit of t:onlitl rt.: o;'-serrar:e. seniorittl, ctnears of pag .tc. lbt i, / pL rpo.sc.s Lr'tb\ett iuo:tlcl b? o| ptLr tsitlt J rr::Jt a].polr1t,li.!tit-..;_ lcrLdiacl

¶31

¶32

miscellaneous petitions, if anA, sho,LL c"lso stcLrLCT dsmissed. IVo order as to costs. "

¶33

This Court, having considered the^'submissions of the learned Government Pleader for Services-1, appearing for the petitioners, is of the considered view that since similar issue which was raised in the present Writ Petition has already been adjudicated by this Hon'ble Court vide Writ Petition No.3546O of 2013 and batch, dated O8.O6.2018; therefore, following the order passed in the said writ petition and for reasons alike, the present Writ peti[ion is also dismissed as above. No costs.

¶34

4 As a sequel, miscellancous applications pending il any, shall

¶35

stand closed.

¶36

SD/. K. VENKAIAH ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

i I

//TRUE COPY//

SECTI OFFICER

To.'"'1. T*o CCs to GP FOR SERVICES l, High Court for the State^{of Telangana} at Hvderabad. [OUT] 2 6il'd6 63iis.^{ihnr'ronnsEKHAR,Advocate[oPUC]}

¶41

(Along with the^{order copy dated 08'06'2013 in W'P' No'35460of 2013and} batch)

¶42

A.^{Two CD CoPies} /BN c-S o.JP

HIGH COUR--

DATED:1 110"|,2023

ORDER

) WP.No.31 of 2017

,?.- _-.f;:=:::-,,.
1ir,i:'ri..
l.l'l' 1,.
/L-\t-' 14 nUE 2U?l
.
:..:..i - .,', )

¶48

DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS WITHDRI,WN WITHOUT C( )TiTS

¶49

€
!,

¶50

THE HON'BLE SRI ]USTICE SANJAY KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO

¶51

WRIT PETITION Nos.35460 of 2013:

¶52

a36Bt t4AA. 153\ 5970. s999. L4976. 19567t 19765.2257A. 24160. 25603. 25632. 25720. 26038. 263r.6. 263t9. 26355. 26500. 26sLt. 265t5. 269sL.29t26. 292tA.3L645. 3L7A4.

¶53

3s717.3As33. OF 20L4:

¶54

a1't^ Aaaa a1 \ e.-r)n i,llt i ala/la a1L)a 1)471 1E()/l1 15943. ,-5954 t6OO7. 17L67. 17622. 2O45A. 41494 oJ z0lst

¶55

67 t 69. 1460. 4494. 4801. OF 2(J16:

¶56

COMMON ORDER

¶57

(per Hon'ble Sri lustice Saniay Kumar)

¶58

All these cases relate to removal of Home Guards from the rolls of

¶59

the Home Guards Organization in the State of Telangana.

¶60

In W.P.No.35460 of 2013, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 18.08.2005 in Khammam District. He was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence by the Superintendent of Police, Khammam District, vide order 01.02.2012. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.1555 of 2013 before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (hereinafter, 'the Tribunal'). The said O.A. was allowed by common order dated 25.04.2013 along with O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. In their counter filed before the Tribunal, the authorities claimed that three show cause notices were issued to the first respondentapplicant on U.08.2011, 26.09.2077 and 17.10.2011 respectively prior to his removal. According to them, the respondent-applicant refused to receive the said notices and they were^pasted on his house before mediators and the Head Constable who did so was stated to have informed this to the superior authority under his lefter dated 05.12.2011. Assailing the common order dated 25.04.2013^passed in O.A.No.1493 of

¶61

¶62

2013 arrd )alch in so far as it related to O.A.No.1555^{ol Z:01:r'tho State} and its po c€ officials flled this writ^{petition.By ord(]rdate(l09.12.2013,} thrs Ccurl took note of the fact that the^{materii)lpla:(d onrecord} denronstra e(l that a notice had been^given to t]e^{first I(lspcndent-} a pplica t'rt rs to his unauthorized absence and th;t he lad^fai ed^to respond tl er,lto and accordingly^granted interim suspensior c)'tho^order under ch lle nge. W.V.lv1.P.N o.2767 of 2017 was filed b', th3^first resl)onder -applicant to vacate the said order. In the colnler {iled in supporl tl)rcrof, he denied the^pasting of show cause^notices ol^{his house} in the prr se']ce of mediators. He however did nol^{denv tl-,lt tlre two} mediators r,'ho signed upon the letter dated 05.12.2011 ol th(r Head Constallle ,{lLo pasted the notices upon his door,^{we.ehrs n3i(lhboJrs. Be} it noted hat the original show cause notices dated^{170i:.20-.1and} 26.)9.2:.01 ir Telugu placed on record bear signatu-es lr^{th(, reversein} proof ot r€celpt and comparison thereof with those ol the^first resoondel :-?pplicant in the counter flled in support of thl "aca[e^stay petitiorr r€ le,rts similarities.

¶63

ln V.).No.1368 of 2014, the first respondenl was alprint(ld^asa Horne G[ rr(l on 31.12.2006. He was removed fron ;trVce by^the Superinte d€nt of Police, Warangal District, vide or(ler^{dat(rd 24.10.2011} on th€^g oLnd that he had indulged in corrupt^{practlc,)sAglrieved} therebv, I e liled O.A.No,587 of 2013 before the Tr bunal. Ih2^{said O.A.} was allow rd by common order dated 25.04.2073 alcng witl^{(..A,t\o.1493} of 2013 i rd batch. Assailing the said order in so lar as i.ltertained to O-A.Nc.5t 7 ol 2013, the State and its^police oflicials f le:l th s writ petition.' aking note of the fact that the first resplndent-applic.nt^was given tr sl cv/ cause notice prior to his removal, this^{,lourt g .ar} ted interim

¶64

¶65

suspension of the order under challenge on 23.01.2014. Admittedly, show cause notice dated 27,09.2011 was issued to the first respondentapplicant in relation to the complaints received against him by the Reserve Inspector of Police, Home Guards Organization, Warangal. He submitted his explanation thereto on 03.01.2011. The Three Men Committee chaired by the Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, found that his explanation was not convincing and in the light of the irrefutable evidence of his having indulged in corrupt practices, the Committee resolved to remove him from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization, Warangal. Basing thereupon, the Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, issued the order of removal dated 24.10.2011. In the common order dated 75.04.2013, the Tribunal extracted the facts relevant to one case, viz., O.A.No.1493 of 2013, being of the opinion that the issues involved were common in all the O.A.s. The point for consideration was framed thus:

¶66

'Whether the impugned Order bearing C.No.31 / RI-HGS / MBNR / 2008 / (D.O.No.2590/09) dated 77130.10.2009 issued by the 5h respondent removing the applicant as Home Guard from the rolls of Home Guards Organization of Mahabubnagar District is bad in law?'

¶67

Ultimately, the Tribunal opined that as there was violation of the statutory rule requiring issuance of^prior notice to a Home Guard and a reasonable opportunity being afforded to him before removal from service, the Tribunal allowed all the O.A.s. Significantly, though a show cause notice was issued it did not contain the details of the charge and the substratum thereof.

¶68

In W.P.No.1488 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in Adilabad District on 30.12.2003. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police,^{Adilabad District, videorder dated}

¶69

¶70

24.il.2Qo cn the^ground of unauthorized absence^{lrom (lLtyAg()rieved} thercby, h ' i led O.A.No.3187 of 2013 before the Trit,unal.^{By :,rde dated} 30.()4.201 , he Tribunal allowed the said O.A. on^{the q(} u^{d tlrat the} impL-rgned rcmoval was violative of the^principles oF^{tl. tL -alustice.} Ass,rilinJ I re said order, the State and its^police o'Fictals^{'ilod tl is writ} petrtron. Ii te-im suspension of the order under chall(tnge \vits Jrarted by this Couft )i 24.0!.2074. W.V.M.P.No.898 of^{2014 {,as fi} eJ^{l)y tlre first} responcler alplcant to vacate the said order. Th€ autho-itrls^(laimed thal shcu^(,ruse notices/lvlemos were issued to tte^{tirstr,tspcndent-} applicant⁽ rlIng for his explanation^{in relationto his Lnautho'iz,lda rsence} but despit tre same being served upon him on^{24.11.:l0,lti,r)2.12.2008} and 10.12 2018, he did not submit any explanation.^rlopres'()f he 'lemos dakrd 24.: 1..1008, 02.12.2008 and 10.12.2008 bear^{signatur3salorg with} the dat3⁽ receipt. The said signatures are similar to those )f^{tlre first} resf)oncren^.a )plrcant in his counter-aFfidavit filed in tl'is \ riI l]et tion.

¶71

In^{ /.[.No.1531 of 2014, the first respondent was^{i][rp:jinteCas a} Honre 3Lr d on 28.08.2003. He was removed from se-v te l)y the Superinter iert of Police, Warangal District,^vide order dal.el^5.01.200u on the gr^ru rd of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved therr:b1 , h,:^flled O.A.No.31 7 of 2073 before the Tribunal. By ccmmon order^dated 29.()4.2)1. passed in a batch of cases, including OA.No.31:t of 2013, the lribun I i llowed all the cases following its earlier order;. At saihng th(: sard corT'rn rn order in so far as it related to O.A.N1.313./ 01 2013, the State and Ls police officials filed this writ petition. Inteflm : uspcnliion oF the order r rder challenge was granted by this Court^(,n 24.1 .:'j0t4 takin(l nok, of t e fact that a show cause notice was given t, th,l first responden aPplicant before his removal from servicrr. Il is th: cl,rtm of}

¶72

¶73

! the authorities that show cause notice dated 28.02-2008 was issued to the first respondent-applicant before he was removed from service. A photo copy thereof is placed on record, but it does not bear any signature in proof of receipt by the first respondent-applicant. The same stand was taken by the authorities in their counter filed before the Tribunal. No rejoinder was filed by the first respoMent-applicant before the Tribunal rebutting this statement.

¶74

In W.P.No.5970 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 07.09.2010. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, warangal District, vide order dated 12.09.2011 on the^ground of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.9547 of 2012 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated L2.12.2012, wherein the Tribunal opined that as the first respondent-applicant had been acquitted in C.C.No.124 of 2011 on the file of the learned VII Additional ludicial Magistrate of Flrst Class, Warangal, vide^judgment dated 08.09.2011, there would be no impediment in allowing him to discharge his duties as a Home Guard. The issue of^his unauthorized absence was however not dealt with.^Assailing the^said order, the State and its^police officials filed this writ^{petition.Interim} suspension of the order under challenge was^granted by this^{Court on} 04.O3.?OL4. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ^petition,the authorities claimed that the first respondent-applicant^{wasissuedshow} cause notices dated 03.07.2011 and 27.07.2OL1calling^{forhis explanation} in relation to his unauthorized absence from duty.^According to^them,he failed to submit his explanation and it^was only^thereafter that^{he was} removed from service. They also^{pointed out} that^{he had been removed} from service due to his unauthorized absence^{and not due} to^his

¶75

¶76

inv(rlvere^,t in a criminal case. Though Sri R.Rajasekqar R,ro, earned counse , € lt€ re(l appearance for the Flrst respondent applicant, he Jid not choose to [ikr a counter rebutting the aforestated av3rmenti nrade in the wril aFf da^'it.

¶77

lrr V.l',No.5999 of 2014, the first respondent was a)point(d as a Honle^(iui'd on 07.01.2004 in Khammam District. He was renroved from sen/rce llt tl're Superintendent of Police, Khamman Distri( t, vrd( order datr:d t8, 2.2010 on the ground of unauthorized absence^Fronr duty. Agqrieved thr:rg[y, 6. filed O.A.No.1915 of 2013 beore the^- nbural. By conrmon⁽ d(:r dated 25.04.201.3, the Tribunal allowei the siric O.A. along with O.A.l o.t493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the :iaid or(le. th(: State and its p( ce officials Filed this writ petition. lnterirn sJsp'ln:,ion of the ordr:r und' r r:hallenge in so far as it related to O.A.llo.1915 ol 20 .3 was granted b tlris Court on 04.03.2014. W.V.M.P.No.901 of 2l1,l wz s filed by lhe lirs r€ s^{pondent-applicant} to vacate the said order, []( il notod that t rs the ca ie of the authorities that show cause notices daterl 3.11.2010, 22.' 1.201t a1d 10.12.2010 were issued to the first^'espon( er t-appllcant calIng lor ris explanation as to his unauthorized abs?nce, but he^(lid not chorlse to e!pond. Copres of the said show cause notices i re plar:ed on rec()rd arlc they bear signatures in Telugu in proof of receipt l'ow€ver, in his :ounte^-a-fidavrt filed in support of the vacate stay peti.ic l, tfe first resL-ronoen^-al)plicant signed in English. Similarly, he signed ir En! lish in the vakala fcrm also. Further, he categorically deniec receip: ()'the sho,/ cau:,c noti es and asserted that he never endorsed them rvilh srgnatures in Telultlr, l€ further stated that he never signed in Teluqr even in the officr rr:cc ls, including the attendance register. Nc reply aff davit was filed by thr atrthorities rebulting these averments.

¶78

¶79

In W.P.No.No.14976 of 2074, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 17.10,20005 in Nizamabad District. He was removed from service for unauthorized absence by order dated 29.04.200g of the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District, without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.5100 of 2013 before the Tribunal. By order dated 04.07.2013, the Tribunal allowed the said O.A. following its earlier order dated 01.10.2010 in O.A.No.2583 of 2008, which was confirmed by this Court in W.p.No.28875 of 2010 and batch, vide order dated 07.09.2011. He was directed to be reinstated in service in consequence. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. By order dated 03.06.2014, this Court^granted interim suspension of the order under challenge.

¶80

In W.P.No.19567 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 29.72.2003. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, vide order dated 27.02.2008 on the^ground of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.1005 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated L2,02,2074, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 07.08.2014. The removal order dated 27.02.2008 records that show cause notices were issued to the first respondent-applicant on 25.07.2007, 01.08.2007 and 10.08.2007. However, copies of the said show cause notices are not placed on record and there is no evidence of service of such notices upon the first respondent-applicant.

¶81

¶82

h\ .P.No.19765 of 2014,^{thefirstrespondentwas al)p:)intedasa} Honre^(lui .d in the year 2007. He was removed "rom s(ru'ce l)y the Superin:er lerrt of Police, Nalgonda^{District, vide ord3rdalei ;18.0t.2009} on the 9I ;und of unauthorized absence.^{Aggrievedthen)b)',h': filed} O,A No.85 cf 2015 beFore the Tribunal.^{The said O.A. vrzs ,lllovred by} order datr ) i7.02.2014, wherein the^{Tribunal follorved its e:rrlietorder} dated 2 5.1 4,:1013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013^{and batch. As:;ailirgthe said} order, the State and its^police officials^{filed this writpetiti,rrr' :;tatus quo} obtaining s )n 08.08.2014^{wasdirectedto be maintained)y thisCourt'} w./.[.,].).1 ).2.064 of 2014 was^{filed by} the^{firstrespond€rnt*a ppli(:an t to} vacate th( said order. According^{to the authorities,the fi's: llspc)ndent-} applicarrt va; issued show cause notices^{dated20.10.20011, 10.11.2008} and 25 11 2C08^prior to his removal^{fromservice,btt he dirl rot r3spond} thereto. C rpies of the said show cause^noticesare lllaced^{on recc'rd and} bear signz .ures in Telugu in^{proofof receipt. The sakl signatJrirs tally with} the signat rr€s of the first respondent-applicant^{in hiscou nt€r-.rffidavit but} he ass{tttr d :herein that he did not^{receiveany shc,wcause.loti(les and} that the s ln^{rtures ttrereinwere not his.He fufther statedtlla: even if the} averm(:nt hirt show cause notices^were served upor^{him'l/lstak€nat its} face valu( the said notices did not^{complywith ther,:levantru e.}

¶83

lt.t V.,.No.22578 ot 2014, the first^{respondertwas .} P[oint3d^asa Home Gu d on 20.07,!992. This^{is however dispul.ed as th(l authorities} stated irl he writ affidavit that the records^reveal tllat^her 'v;;^appointed as a Hon e Guard on 15.11.1995, In any^{event, he was -e-rov<ld from} servic€ b the Superintendent of Police,^{Warangal Distrir:t,vidrl order} dared 1l otr.2001 on the ground that he had^{comrn tt(:dbrgery.} Aggrie'/e( tl,ereby, he filed O.A.No.3196 of 2013^{belore theTribunal, The}

¶84

¶85

said O.A. was allowed by order dated 20.0!.2074, wheretn the Tribunal opined that the removal was in vlolation of the principles of natural justice. Assailing the said order, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 07.08.2014. W.V.M.P.No.2190 of 2017 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order. It is not the case of the authorities that they issued any show cause notice or afforded any opportunity of hearing to the first respondent-applicant prior to his removal from service on the grave charge that he had committed forgery.

¶86

In W.P.No.24160 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in the year 1995. He was removed from service vide order dated 12.01.2001 of the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District, on the ground that he had misplaced the records. This order was however not^preceded by any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.943 of 2014 before the Tribunal. By order dated 17.02.2014, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. following its earlier order dated 25.04.2073 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. The authorities were directed to reinstate him in service forthwith. Aggrieved thereby, the S[ate and its police officials filed this writ petition. By order dated 22.08.2014, this Coud^granted interim suspension of the order under challenge.

¶87

In W.P.No.25603 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in Nizamabad District on 20.11.2006. He was removed from service for unauthorized absence by order dated 09.10.2009 of the Superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District, without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby. he filed O.A.No.913 ot 2014 before the Tribunal. By order dated 11.02.2014, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. following its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in

¶88

¶89

O.A.No.t4{ I of 2013 and batch. Aggraeved therebl,^{the:;ta-e andits} polir.e cffir ar'; f led this wriL petition. By order dated 0ji.09^201'1,this Cou.t gran ld rnlerim suspensron of the order under^cralleng,:

¶90

In '.1).No.25632 of 2014, the first respondent^{was al)p:)intedasa} Honre CLra d ln 03.09.2005 in Nizamabad District.^{H{l was} r:n'ovel^from serr,rce b1 r:rder dated 19.07.2011 of the Super nterlde'lt of^Police, Nizamalla( t)istrict, due to involvement in a crime registeled^under Secl.ion 30^.-l IPC. It is however relevant to note that^{prtor trr h s removal,} shoiv ctrus rrotice dated 12.02.2017 was issued to hm^{and hr:suL mitted} his r)xplan tion on 24.03.2011. The order of removal dated^{19 07.:1011is} hoyrever ot a reasoned order in so far as the first^les lon(lent^is concerned a,( 5:l Home Guards were removed from :.erv cr: :lt^{reullder at} a s'roke.^'lerelv noting remarks against each of^th,lm. Il^{sc, faras the} firsl respo dcnt is concerned, the remarks noted agai''lst^hi:i larne^read:

¶91

,He is involved in criminal case vide Cr.1,to.38.// 2()10 Lj/s 304 (A) IP:, dtd: 7.12.10 of Rural PS of Nizamal)ad anc i:sue(l show car ,e notice.'

¶92

r\gr rir:ved by his removal from service, the 'irst re: p(tndelt^frled O.A,No.9l )3 of 2013 before the Tribunal. The said Cr.A.^wat ;r low,:d^vide order dat{ :1 17.12.2013, wherein the Tribunal opine(l that tlte^{mat:er was} covered t r' ts earlier order dated 70.t1.2012 in Cr.A.l'lo.! 0(:5 o' 2012. Agorievec thereby, the State and its^police officials filed thi:' h rit t,etition. By ord,:r iated 03.09.2014, this Court^granted interim susJ,e-sior of the oroor r nd r:hallenge.

¶93

In V.),No.25720 of 2014, the first responder t was .^pt,oint3d as a Home Gu rd on 31.12.2003 in Nizamabad District. l-]e was rernov(ld from service f r unauthorized absence by order date(l 30.0(.2,)10 of the Su,lerinte rdcnt of Polce, Nazamabad District, wi$out rr;suirnce of any show cau e notrce or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed C.A No.,i568 of

¶94

¶95

2013 before the Tribunal. The O.A. was allowed by order dated 04.09.2013, wherein the Tribunal opined that the matter was covered by its earlier order dated 25.04.20t3 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Aggrleved thereby, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 03.09.2014.

¶96

In W.P.No.26038 of 7014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 31.12.2003. He was removed from service for unauthorized absence by order dated 08.12.2006 of the superintendent of Police, Nizamabad District. Claiming that he was never served the said order of removal, he filed O.A.No.169 of 2014 before the Tribunal assalling the same. By order dated 20.07.2014, the Tribunal allowed the o.A. following its earlier order dated 75.04.2013 in o.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its^police officials filed this writ petition. By order dated 25.06.2015, this Court^granted interim suspension of the order under challenge.

¶97

In W.P.No.26315 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 20.04,2007. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District,^vide order dated^25.02.2072, on the ground of unauthorized absence. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.2053 of 2014 before the Tribunal.^The said^{O.A.was allowedby} the order dated 18.03.2014,^{wherein the Tribunal followed its earlierorder} dated 25.04.2013 in o.A.No.1493 of^{2013andbatch. Assailingthe said} order, the State and its^police officials filed this writ^{petition.Interim} suspension was^granted on 08.09.2014. It is^{not the case} of^the authorities that they issued any show^{cause noticeto the first respondent-} applicant^prior to his removal.

¶98

¶99

tn ' ./.1'.No.26319 of 2014, the first responden^{wasaDf,)intod asa} Hon]e^(lui d in October, 1998. He^was removed frorl^servi(e l)urslant^to the res)lu on dated 29.01.2010 oF the^{Threelvlemb(rrCcmrni:ee :haired} by the Sr^perintendent of Police, Nalgonda Distrid, on tle^{ground of} unauth,rri. ld absence. Aggrieved thereby, he^{filed ().A.N,r.1,} i7^{(f 2014} before tf i Tribunal. The said o.A. was allowerd by o.ler^dated fi.A2.i'.01 l, wherein the Tribunal followed rts ear ier^{c .der dated} 25.04.r'01i in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch.^Assrilingt te^{salc order,} the Statc rnl its^polce officials frled this writ^petitior. Irtterr^suslenslon of the^(,ri er under challenge was^granted by this^(lourt on^)8.01.2014. W.,/.t''1 P.l o.2774 of 2015 was filed by the first^{rer,pondet -,tppllcant l.o} vacate th s,lid order. The authorities did not claim^{hat tlx y )ut ilhe first} responde t-;ipplicant on notice prior to his removal ftom s(:r/i( l.

¶100

lr v.),No.26355 of 2014, the frrst responder t was^(rl).ointed as a Home Gr ar,i on 27.08.2005. He was removed 'ronl slr,ice by^the Suoerilrte^rdent of Police, Nalqonda District,^vide or,ier dattd^24.12.2007 on the, E oi nd that he had exhabrted^grave misconduc: by consuming alcohol \r riiir on duty. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.2,'25 rf²⁰¹⁴ berore t e Tribunal. The said O.A. was allow3d br' c der dated L6 04.20 1, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlicr^,: rder dated 25.04.20 3 rn O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. As:,ailirrg^lhC sai,l order, the SLrte ard its^policc officials filed this writ^petiticn. Inte in suspension of the or er under challenge was grantd by this Court on 0.'.09.2014. It is not tl r :ase of the authorities that they put the firil resfondentapplicar'rt )n notice prior to hrs removal on the chargs of nri:,ccndu:t.

¶101

ln W P.t1o.26500 of 2014, the first respondent r,,,,a:; rp;oin,ed as a Home Gr :rrl on 03.12.2009 in Nalgonda District. lle vras re nov.:d from

¶102

¶103

service by the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, vide order dated 31.12.2010, due to unauthorized absence from^'duty. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.2202 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 21.03-2014, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in o.A.No.1493 0f 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 10.09.2014. W.V.M.P.No.293 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order. It is not the case of the authoritles that they^put the first respondent-applicant on notice^prior to his removal from service.

¶104

In W.P.No.26511 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home cuard in Hyderabad City in the^year 2007. He was transferred to Nalgonda District thereafter. He was removed from service by order dated 31.12.2010 of the Superintendent of Police, Nalgonda District, due to involvement in a criminal case without issuance of any show @use notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.1316 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The o.A. was allowed by order dated 21.02.2074, wherein the Tribunal opined that the matter was covered by its earlier order dated 75.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and^{batch. Aggrieved thereby, the} State and its^police officials filed this writ^{petition.Interimsuspension of} the order under challenge was^granted by this^{Courton10.09.2014.} W.V.M.P.No.265 of 2015 was filed by the first^{respondent-applicantto} vacate the said order.

¶105

In W.P.No.26515 of 2014, the^{firstrespondent was appointedas a} Home Guard in the^year 2007.^{Hewas removedfrom service,vide order} dated 25.02.2012 oF the superintendent of^{Police, NalgondaDistrict, for}

¶106

¶107

una.rthcrir d absence lvlthout issuance of any sh()w caLs€^noticeor er]qJrry. I lg'ieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.2076 of 201 1^)eforethe Tribuna. I re said o.A. was allowed by order dated 18.03.201^{4, 'herein} the Tribun I recorded that the case was covered by ils earli€r^r rdet dated 25.()4.201 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Ag lrieved tl'eret,y, the Stare a''rl Ls police officials filed this writ^petition. I rterirn ;u:pen;ion of the orrler urlder challenge was granted by this Crurl or 10.0!),2014. W./.1\4.).f l.:143 of 2015 was filed by the first respond€rnt irppli(znt to vac,rte th( said order.

¶108

ln /.t),No.26951 of 2014, the first respondent was apt)lint()d as a Horne,llr rd in Nalgonda Drstrict on 11.10.1998. H: was ,-'rrroved front ser r'ce. ! de order dated 19.06.2009 of the Sup€flntend:nl of Police, Nalgonla )irtrict, for unauthorized absence from duly withcut issuance of an/ sro\ cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved there)y, h(' filed O.A.No. t( )4 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by thr Triblr ai vide order dated 12.02.20L4 recording that tlle mat.er was sqrareiy' overed by its earlier order dated 25.04.2C13 n C.1, No.t493 of 2013 and b.tch. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its po|c: :,fficDls filed thlr writ retition. By order dated 12.09.20L4, this :ourt granted interinl suspersi( r rf the order under challenge. W.V.M.P.No 3,1t ci 2C15 was fik,d bv tl e lirst respondent-applicant to vacate the said ord:r

¶109

In W.P.t1o.29126 of 2014, the first respondent vr,as ;ppoinled as a Hc,me Gl rrrl on 16.03.1996 in Kanmnagar District. le rvas rr:noved from sevice L,the Superintendent oF l)olice, Karimnag:r t)istricl vice order dated 19 13.2003, on the ground that he was involved n C'ir e N).147 of 2002 rer st:red under Sections 419 and 511 IPC on th(, file ot the V€mulawrd;r Police Station, The order of removal was nrt Precr:ded by

¶110

¶111

any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.1351 of 2014 before the Tiibunal. The O,A. was allowed by order dated 20.02.2014, wherein the Tribunal recorded that the matter was covered by its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 25.09.2014. W.V.M.P.No.4262 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶112

In W.P.No.29218 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 07.01.2004 in Warangal District. She was removed from service, vide order dated 17.11.2005 passed by the Superintendent of Pollce, Warangal District, on the^ground of unauthorized absence without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, she approached the Tribunal by way of O.A.No.1583 of 2013. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 23.72.2073, wherein the Tribunal opined that the matter was covered by its earlier order dated 31.01.2012 in O.A.No.65,l4 of 2011. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its^police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 25.09.2014. W.V.M.P.No.1396 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶113

In W.P.No.31645 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 12.12.1998 in Nalgonda District. He was^{removed from} service by order dated 07.06.2001 of the^{superintendent} of^Police, Nalgonda District, on the^ground of unauthorized^{absencefromduty} without issuance of any show cause notice^{or enquiry. Aggrleved thereby,} he filed O.A.No.4588 of 2014 before the^{Tribunal. The saidO.A.was} allowed by order dated 01.08.2014,^{wherein the Tribunal opinedthat the}

¶114

¶115

matlr-.r^j!a c,)vered by its earlier order dated 25.04.,101-l^{n C A.Nr.1493} of 2013 ar :l t)at(:h. Assailing the said order, the State^{and its clfioalsFiled} this wfl: Frt ion. Interim suspension of the order^{Llnder charlen(ewas} grafted b! th s Court on 21.10.2014.

¶116

l1 \ '.F,No.31784 of 2014, the first respondenl^{wasa )pointcd asa} Honre^(;ue d in Nalgonda District on 27.08.2005.^{H(' was} rln^{ove,l fronl} serr,rce by tl'e Superintendent of^Police, Nalgonda Distri,:t.^{r'ide order} dakrd 15.1 4.2006, on the^ground of unauthorized^{abserr:efronl duty} without is! ra'rce of any show cause notice or enqulr).^{Aqgrir:v,dtlereby,} he^trled C 4.\0.4664 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The srtrl^{O i. /as} allo,qed b) order dated 05.08.2014, wherein the^{Tribunal o[inodtllat the} matler',!a c;vered by its earlier order dated 25.04..1013^{n C A.N11493} of ;'01j ; rc batch. Assailing the said order, the ;tate en(l^{its police} offirials^{ril ,d} thrs writ^petition. Interim suspension of the c der^under chal enlre /a';^granted by this Court on 24.10.2014.^{W.V.t'lP.1to.1196of} 2015 w.rs lerl by the first respondent-applicant to^va(rate th€ s'id^order.

¶117

1r /.P.No.34122 of 2014, the first respondent was a^{)point€d as a} Honre^(ju. d on 15.03.2006 in Warangal District. H( was rln^{ove,l flonr} serv ce by h(: Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, b'I^t:rdetdated 16.()U.2110( o r the ground of involvement in a crimin.ll caso.^{T' is o-derof} renrova v as nct preceded by any show cause notice or^erquiry. Agqrrevr:d he reby, he approached the Tribunal by w;ry of^{()A.l',lo.7349of} 2011. The iaid O.A. was allowed by order dated 07.10.2013^r' herr:in the Tribuna fr lowed its earlier order dated 25.04.201:i in O. .'1o.1'193 of 201J ard at:h. Assailing the said order, the State and its t,o^rce cfTicials file{- this \ iii petitron. Interim suspension of the orler unrler chellenge

¶118

1,7

¶119

was granted by this Court on l2.lt.2Ol4. W.V.M.P.No.4152 of 2015 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶120

In W.P.No.35717 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 06.01.1992. He was removed from service on the ground of unauthorized absence, vide order dated 17.11.2001 of the Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved.thereby, he filed O.A.No.6117 of 2013 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by the Tribunal by order dated 27.72.20L3 relying upon the^judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH V/s. SYED QAMARALII. Assailing the said order, the State and its^police officials filed this writ petltion. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was^granted by this Court on 25.7r.2014.

¶121

In W.P.No.38533 of 2014, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in lune, 1999. He was removed from service on the^ground of unauthorlzed absence by the Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, vide order dated 23.77.2009. The said order records that show cause notices dated 31.08.2009, 17.09.2009 and 03.10.2009 were^issued to the first respondent. He filed O.A.No.5760 of 20L4 before the^Tribunal assailing his removal from service on the^ground that he was not issued any notice and no enquiry was conducted.^{The said O.A. was disposed} of by order dated 25.09.2014 directing the^authorities to allow^himto continue in service if no removal orders^werepassed till^{then. It may be} noted that the Tribunal recorded in the^order that the^{firstrespondent} contended before it that no^{removalorder had been issued. Thatis the} reason why relief was^granted on the^{lines lndicated above.However,}

¶122

I 1967 sLR 228 (sc)

¶123

¶124

tho.rgh ar order of removal had already been^{passe,Jon ,Ij.1.20i19,the} Staie and itri police officials filed this writ^{petitiorassailn(l th(r order} Passed^bY the Tribunal. Interim suspension of^{the ordertlrdorchSllenge} was, grant rd by this couft on 16.72.20L4. W.V.M.P.No.9:19 cl²⁰ [5^was filed by t e first respondent-applicant to vacate the said^or(ler. In^the cou nte r ilei in support thereof, the first respon,leltt-applicant categorice ly denied recerpt of the show cause notic,ls datej .11.0{1.2009, 17 .09.24O ) €nd 03.10.2009. He pointed out that th€ copir:s t-ereof, filed by the au hc,rities before this Couft, clearly demonstrated :h,t they had been srtrv d on some one named Saramma. He statsd that there^r'vasno person by ti-at name in his family or amongst his relation;^{: nd} 'hat^he never recr ivr:d any of the said show cause notices. [,lo repl) a'fidavit was filed by th ,State rebutting this factual averment.

¶125

n V.^).No.3224 of 2015, the flrst respondenl was apf))inted as a Horne^(lui rd in Warangal District in the year 2005. l-le was^-e-rov(d from service b' t]e Superintendent of Police, Waranga Distri( t, vidt: order dated 28 t0 2006 on the ground of unauthorized abser<re front duty. Ag(lneved th3reby, he filed O.A.No.5489 of 2014 before tl,e Ttibural. The said O.A. ,trz s allowed by order dated 17.09.2014, whereill^1:re lribunal followed i s :arlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.l,lo.149: or 2013 and batch. Th ulth no counter-affidavit wa's filed by the^,ruthoritie! befcre the Tribunal, hey claimed in the affidavit flled in suppot of lhr lvrit letition that sho\ c,ruse notices dated 05.06.2006, 31.07.:1006 ard 25.t,8.2006 were issur d^r.o him and despite acknowledglng receipt therer:f, he failed to submit hi: e(planation, leading to his removal from servi,:e b/ thJ order dated 28 1.0 2006. In the counter flled in suppor: of lri;^,,aca:e stay petrtior ir \ '.V.lvl.P.No,2194 of 2015, the first respondent-rt rlicant

¶126

¶127

denied receipt of any show cause notices. He categorically stated that the signatures in the said show cause notices were concocted and manipulated. No reply affldavit was filed denying this counter-affidavit averment. Perusal of the show cause notices placed before this Couft reflects that they bear the signatures of D.Suresh but comparison thereof with those of the first respondent-applicant in his counter affidavit Filed before this Court does not demonstrate any similarity. Interim suspension of the said order was granted by this Court on 18.02.2015.

¶128

In W.P.No.4133 of 2015, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 13.05.1992. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Warangal District, vide order dated 19.01.1995, on the^ground of unauthorized absence from duty without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed o.A.No.1281 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said o.A. was allowed by order dated 17.02.2074, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its^police officials filed this writ^petition.

¶129

In W.P.No.57Z5 of 2015, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 19.01.1989. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, on the^ground of unauthorized absence from duty, vide order dated^03.12.1996. His^appealdated 24.04.20L3 against the said removal was^dismissed by the^Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, on^{13.06.2013.Evenpriorto the} dismissal of the appeal, the first^{respondent approachedthe Tribunalby} way of O.A.No.4555 of 2013 seeking a^direction to the^{authorities to} consider his representation daled^{24.04.2073forre-enrollinghim as a} Home Guard and to declare his removal^{fromservice without due process}

¶130

¶131

of aw as le3al. By order dated 19,06.2013, the^{Tribunal alllv,ed t'leO.A.} following ts earlier order dated 20.11.2012 in^{O.A.No90(;5ot 2012} Assailing he said order, the State and its^police c,fficials fi^(rd tlis^writ pefition. l rt( rim suspension of the order under challenge^{u a:i gra rtedby} this Courl orr 09.03.2015. W.V.lY.P.No.1085 of 2015^{was fil:c by lhefirst} responcer t-urpplicant to vacate the said order.

¶132

In V.P.No.8720 of 2015, the flrst responden: was^{€ pl:oint-'dasa} Home Gl arrl on 19.01.1989. He was removed 'rom str,ice by the Superinte rdr:nt of Police, Adllabad District, vide order d.rt rd 19.01.1997 on the^gr und of unauthorized absence without any show rattse notice^or enq uin/. igr;rieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.5537 of 20 l3 beflre the Tribun,li. -hr said O.A, was allowed by order dated 19.07.2()13, ^/herein th€r Tribu al followed its earlier order dated 25.04.2()I3 in o.A.No.1493 of 20 t3 and b.tch. Assailing the said order, the State and its^p(tlice officials filed this ,{rt petition. Interim suspension of the crder utrdt:r challenge was gran 3d by this Coud on 31.03.2015. W.V.M.P.No.l45I :)f 2[r16^was filed bv tt r first respondent-applicant to vacate the said ord lr

¶133

In N.P.No.10440 of 2015, the first respondent wa:;^,tp[)ointed as a Home GL arj on 14.07.1991. He was removed from s3r\ice by the Superi.rte )d()nt of Police, Adilabad District, on the^ground cf r-nau:horized absen(:e, vi(le order dated 19.i2.1997, without is;uance o' anv show cause no c€ or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he file(l O.A.No.lj24 3f 2014 before t e Tribunal. The said O.A. was allow:d by c-der dated 30 01.20: ,1, wherein the Tribunal opined that tht: remo ral orcler was vit ated⁽ r :he ground of violation of the principles oF Iralrrral^justice. Assarl[']g hr: said order, the State and its pollce offlcials fil:d this writ petition. rterinr suspension of the order under chal enge u a:; granted by

¶134

¶135

this court on 13.04.2015. w.v.M.P.No.1449 of 2016 was filed by the first respondent applicant to vacate the said order.

¶136

In W.P.No.11406 of 2015, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 18.05.1991. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, vide order dated 18.10.1995, on the ground of unauthorized absence without any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.459 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 29.01.2014, wherein the Tribunal followed iLs earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 22.04.20L5. W.V.M.P.No.1455 of 2016 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶137

In W.P.No.11422 of 2015, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 20.05.1991. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, vide order dated 03.12.1996, on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty without issuance of any show cause notice or enqulry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.194 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 2L.0L.2014, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 25,04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its^police officlals flled this writ^petition. lnterim suspension of the order under challenge was^granted by this Court on 22.04.20L5. W.V.M.P.No.1454 of 2016 was filed by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶138

In W.P.No.12671 of 2015, the first respondent was^{appointed as a} Home Guard on 06.09.2005. He was removed from service by the

¶139

¶140

Sup{-.rinter lert of Police, Adilabad Dtstnct,^{videordrlr date{i.i3,0'.2008,} on the^qro n(l of unauthorized absence^{from duty witrou: ary: hou cause} notiire cr € rqriry. Aggrieved thereby,^{he filed O.A.No 2352 oi;1313before} the Triru al The said O.A. was allowed by^{cctnmonotderdated} 25.1)4.2)1. a ong with O,A.No.1493 of 2013 and^{bat(lh.Ass:rilirrg tl)e said} ordt,r, the State and its^police ofFicials filed this v/rit^{petti,,n.lnterim} suspensior o[ the order under challenge^{wasgranted)n 29.04.;1015.}

¶141

Irr '.P.No.15941 of 2015, the first respondenl^was a^{)point€d asa} Honre Cua d rn 08.03.1985. He was ri:moved from s,:rvice^{cn {)2.1.1.1985} due to un. rttrorrzed absence but taken back^{in service on 0(,C'i,1937.He} was again e.loved fron] service on 26.05.1994 due to^{lonqlbl;enc:fronr} dug. H s^, )p resentations to reinstate him failed to^evok€ ln"^re:;ponse and his ap rc,rl tvas also dismissed by the Additional Dired,)r^Gen:raloF Poll(e, lJor re Guards, on 17.06.2013. He thereupon^iilec o.A.lio,3l84^of 201.:l befor r tre Tribunal. By interim order dated 29.C4.2013^{tf re Tlibunal} direrled tt'^, .,utllorities to consider his representatiotts datei^.8.0.i.2013 and 19.1)1. 0 -3 For re-enrollment as a Home Guard : nd^{pasl i'ppropriate} ordcrs rvr rn a time frame. Assai|ng the said order, the ;titte.nd^its poli( e offic rls filed this writ petition. lnterim suspens on of t re said order was^gr ar ,i lcn 12.06.2015.

¶142

In V .P No.15943 oF 2015, the first respondent was aJ,p,:intel^asa Horre^(;ua d on 31.03.1997. He was removed frcm servi:e by the Supcrinten, e.t oF Police, Adilabad Drstrict, vide order dak:d 1r).04 2003, on the gror nc of unauthorized absence without any show carst: no.ice or enqurry, A grreved thereby, he filed O.A.No.6727^ctf 2.01- :,efote the Tribunal T e ;aid O.A. vras allowed at the admission r tage D)' r^-der dated 13.09.2C13 v/herein the Tribunal followed its earlier order clated

¶143

¶144

25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its^police omcials filed this writ^petitlon. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 09.06.2015.

¶145

In W.P.No.15952 of 2015, the first respondent was appointd as a Home Guard on 05.05.1991. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, by order dated 03.12.1996, on the^ground of unauthorized absence without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.394 of 2014 before the Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed by order dated 28,01.2014, wherein the Tribunal opined that the removal was illegal as the^principles of natural^justice had not been followed. Assailing the said order, the Sbate and its^police officials filed this writ^petition. Interim suspension^of the order was^granted on 09.06.2015. W.V.M.P.No.1429 of^{2016 was filed} by the first respondent-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶146

In W.P.No.16007 of 2015, the first respondent was appointed^{as a} Home Guard on 23.08.1991. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Adilabad District, by order dated^{19.01.1997, on} the ground of unauthorized absence without any show cause^{notice or} enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed^o.A.No.197 of^{2014 beforethe} Tribunal. The said O.A. was allowed^{by order dated21.01.2014, wherein} the Tribunal followed its earlier order dated^{25.04.2013 in o.A.No.1493 of} 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the^{Stateand its police omcials} Rled this writ^petition. Interim suspension of the^{orderunderchallenge} was granted by this court on 10.06.2015.^{W.V.M.P.No.1731of 2016 was} filed by the first respondent-applicant^{to vacate the said order.}

¶147

In W.P.No.17167 of 2015,^the first^{respondent was appointed as a} Home Guard on 16.08.2005. He^{was removedfrom serviceby the}

¶148

'24

¶149

Sul)eriflLe dent of Police, Warangal District, by ordtr dateJ 10.01.2010, on the g llrrld of unauthorized absence without rssuance c an/ sholv carse nol:e or enquiry- Aggrieved thereby, he filec O.A.Nt.'66 of²⁰¹⁴ before tl -. Tnbunal. The said O.A. was allowt:d by o'Cer dated 11.c2.r101 l, wherein the Trrbunal followed its ear ier r,-der dated 25.c4.ro11 i1 O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assriling t re saic order, the State rn(l its^pohce oFficrals filed this writ^petitiorr. Interm susl)ension of the ord r under challenge was granted by this Court on t(,.(rr.2015.

¶150

ln /.1'.No.17622 of 2015, the first respondent was zpl)cinti)d as a Honre,lu. rd in the yeat 2004. He was removed from servi e b'r order dated 16.1 2. 1010 of the Commandant, Home Guards, HyderatDd^(]ty, for unauth()ri; :d absence without issuance of any show causr notice or enouiry. / gErieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.5458 of 2014 befc,re the Tritrlrnal. i y orcler dated 15.09,2014, the Tribunal alloh'e(l tl-,r sa d O,A. following s -.arlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.llo.1493 r 20t3 and batr:h. ,\gr ri€ved thereby, the State and its police cfficial:i frord this writ petrtron. B order dated 18.06.2015, thrs Court grant€d interlnr sLrsfension of the ord rr .rnder challenge. W.V.lvl. P.No.5182 of 2)17 uras^f rled by the first resoo d€nt-applicant to vacate the said order.

¶151

In r.F.No.20458 of 2015, the first respondenl was arpr)int(.d as a Hofre Gua^.d on 07.09.2001 in Nalgonda District. H(, was r:r ove,J fTonr ser!ice by ht: Superintendent of Pohce, Nalgonda Dt:.trict, b/ r rder dated 28.01.2101 , cn the ground that he had indulged in drinking an(l pre,/ented a v.,rtness fron attending an enquiry conduded by tle Ad(litional Sup..-'rinten lent of Police on 20.11.2008, without any 1,how ,:. u. I nctice or enqLriry. A igrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No,5531 )f 201.1 )efo-e the Trib.rnal. l re O.A. was allowed by order dated 77.0').2A7,+,,r,rere in the

¶152

¶153

Tribunal opined that the order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch covered the issue. Assailing the said order, the State and police ofncials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 08.07.2015.

¶154

In W.P.No.41494 of 2015, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in the year 2009. He was removed from service by the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, vide order dated 05.07.2011, on the ground of unauthorized absence without issuance of any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.1205 of 2015 before the Tribunal. The O.A. was allowed by order dated 13.03.2015, wherein the Tribunal followed its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. Assailing the said order, the State and its police officials filed this writ petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was granted by this Court on 22.72.20L5.

¶155

In W.P.No.67 of 2016, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in Ranga Reddy District on 10.03.2010. He was removed from service by order dated 01.07.2011 of the Superintendent of Police, Ranga Reddy District, on the ground of unauthorized absence without any show cause notice or enquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.1003 of 2015 before the Tribunal which was allowed by order dated 12.02.2015, following the order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. The order of removal of the applicant was set aside and the authorities were directed to reinstate him in service. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its^police officials filed this writ^petition. Interim suspension of the order under challenge was^granted on 05.01.2016 by this Court.

¶156

In W.P.No.69 of 2016, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard on 01.06.2005. Due to his unauthorized absence from duty,

¶157

¶158

he wa:; r,nrovr:d fronr seruice, vide order dated^{21.1121 08 of the} Superinhr lent of Police, Ranga Reddy Dlstrict, witlout^{an/ 'lro!\cause} notice or⁽ rquiry. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No^{1206cF.l015before} the Tribur rl. The Tribunal allowed the O.A. vide orcer^{dat€d13.03.2015} following i s :arlier ordcr dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.lio.14!,3 c²⁰ l3^and bakrh and set aside the order of removal. Aggrievel thereb)^{tho State} and polce cflicials filed this writ^petition. By order d;rted^{05 01,2016, this} Court g ;rr ec interim sL.spensron of the order under^(hallergl.

¶159

In /,F.No.1460 of 2016, the first respondent wai^{ll)l).'inteC as a} Honre C;rr; d at Hyderabad in 1998, He was remove(l from^{;ervice under} proceedlr( i dated 29.11.2003 of the Commanditnt, lltxl: Cuards, Hyderabac Cjry, on the^ground that he was indulgingⁱⁿ corru[)^activities. AdnritteJly n3ither a show cause notice was tssued^norv,/a s ln^€nquiry helc prror lo the removal. Aggrieved thereby, he f^led O..'1o.4(i84^oF 201,1 b,:fo e the Tribunal. By order dated 05.08.;014, .h,^Tribunal allor\ied th^().A. following its order dated 25.04.2013 in O.q.'1o.1'193^of 201.1 aoci )alch and drrected the authorities to rein;tate hrr tn :eruice forthwrtr. ,ssailing the said order, the State and its^police ol^{icials filed} this writ p, titron. By order dated 22.01.2016, this Crrurt^{gr,tn:3ditterim} suspens on of the order under challenge. W.V.M.P.N ).138{; ol 2017^was filed by Jre first respondent to vacate the said order.

¶160

In V .P No.4494 of 2016, the First respondent was atpt)nte(l as a Home Guar l in Warangal District in the year 2006. Ht: was r,:l]rtvecl from the'olls ol the Home Guards Organization for unautrorized a:,sen,re, by order date( 2:i.06.2009 of the Superintendent of Pohc,r, War;n(lal D strict. Assailing tf : same, he filed O.A.No.5299 of 2014 before the^' ril)unal. The said O.A. r as allowed by order dated 04.09.7014, f lllowi.r(J :ie rrarlier

¶161

¶162

order dated 24.12.20t3 in O.A.No.9067 of 2013, directing the authorities to allow him to continue in service. Aggrieved thereby, the State and its police omcials filed this writ petition. By order dated 12.02.2016, this Court granted interim suspension of the order under challenge.

¶163

In W.P.No.4801 of 2016, the first respondent was appointed as a Home Guard in 1988. Due to his unauthorized absence in April, 2007 he was removed from the Home Guards Organization, Karimnagar District, by proceedings dated 26.04.2007 of the Superintendent of police, Karimnagar District. Aggrieved thereby, he filed O.A.No.5490 of Z0t4 before the Tribunal. 8y order dated 77.09.2014, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. following its earlier order dated 25.04.2013 in O.A.No.1493 of 2013 and batch. The authorities were directed to reinstate him in service. The State of Telangana and its police officials filed this writ petition assailing the said order. By order dated 18.02.2016, this Court granted interim suspenslon of the order under challenge.

¶164

This being the narrative of the case histories, it would be appropriate at this stage to consider the statutory backdrop of these cases. The Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1948), being the adaptation of the Madras Home Guards Act, 1948, is applicable in the State of Telangana. Similarly, the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949 (For brevity, 'the Rules of 7949'), framed under the provisions of the Act of 1948, would also have application. Section 2(a) of the Act of 1948 defines'Home Guard' to mean a^person who is appointed as a Home Guard under the said Act. Section 3 of the Act of 1948 contemplates constitution of the Home Guards Organization and vests every member of such organization with powers and duties in relation to^protection of persons, security of property and preservation of public order or

¶165

tra nquilit) ;ection 4(1)^provides that any^{person lossessillgthe} prescribe( qualiflcations and wiling to serve may be appointe(l^{as a Home} Guard by ;ur:h authority in such manner as may be^{lrescrite(1,su ljectto} the^prc,vls ons of the Act of 1948 and the^{Rules mad3therelr(ler'Section} 4 also pr vi(ies that on appointment as a Home Cuard, a^{(l:rtifcateof} appointm nt would be issued to the^{incumbent,wh:reupottl'e w:uldbe} vested wi h :he powers,^privileges and^{protectionconferred u'rder the Act} of 1948 a rd the burden of dlscharging duties as a^{H:me Gt} arl.^{S(lction 7} of the A, I rrf 1948 states that the Home^{Guardshall h]vrlth: same} power:;/ I 'iv leges and protection as an officer of the pollcl :rnd re shall be bound to serve the State for such^{perlodand in ;uchar:ar; as maybe} prescribe , :;ection 4 also states that a Home^{Guatd can le susrended,} dismissec cr removed by the^prescribed authority an(l n^suchan eventuali /,^{his certificate of appointmentshall cease to ltaveeffect.} Section I states that all Home Guards shall^{be unrlerthe cr:ntrclof the} police fc ce. Section 9 details the^penalties for^{cogni,:a:lerlffences} committe i l)y Home Guards. Sectton 11 makes it clear th,lt^{a I Home} Guardr;,; ling in exercise of their^powers under th€^Act of^{1,r48, shall be} deemr:d o be^public servants within the^{meanlngoF Se(tion} 2^{of the} Indian P( ra Code, 1860.

¶166

Tr r t{ules of 1949 were framed in exercise^{of the p,liar:r cr:nferred} by Sectir n 10 of the^parent Act. These rules wsre^{apl)li,:abl€ to the} erstwhile St,rte of Andhra Pradesh and in consequerce,^{the',, re} tresently ap plica bl in the newly formed State of Telangana. Rule -l( 1) of tlle^Rules of 1949 rrescribes that no person shall be eligible for apl)oi1tm()nt as a Home Gr rr(i unless he is not less than 20 years of age and n:,t m,)re than 45 years rf age on the date of his application for en-olmeirl;^(:ar'r read and

¶167

¶168

write in any one of the following languaqes, namely, English, Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada and Hindustani; is of good character; and is a resident of the area. Rule 3(4)^provides that every^person selected by the Recruitment Committee for appointment as a Home Guard shall be medically examined and, if found fit, shall sign a^pledge in Form B. Form B is the'Pledge of Service'. Rule 5^perfains to training and states that 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, lathi drill, musketry, fire-fighting, first aid, and the duties and powers of Home Guards. It further. provides that every Home Guard may also be required to undergo a refresher course for a^period of not more than two weeks at an annual camp. Rule 7 is of significance and it reads as under:

¶169

'7. Discipline.-- (1) The Commandant shall comply with all orders 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.

¶170

(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.

¶171

(3) For the purposes of administration and discipline, the Home Guards shall, subject 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.

¶172

(4) The Commandant may, for good and sufficient reasons, impose on any Home Guard any of the following^penalties:

¶173

(a) reprimand;

¶174

(b) extra duty;

¶175

¶176

(d) suspension;

¶177

(e) reduction of rank;

¶178

-10

¶179

(f) removal; and

¶180

(g) dismissal.

¶181

No appeal shall lie against any of thest'^{punisltnr:nts.} In all cas s of disciplinary action, a reasonable or)pot(rnity shall ()rd ra.ily be given to the delinquent Home^(,uard to:jhow cause .ga ls;: the penalty proposed to be imposed on him, but in €r>:c^ptronal cases, when thls course is not^possib|t, it nlay be wai ec for special reasons to be recorded in writinq.

¶182

(5) The Commissioner of Police in the Presilen,ry-t lv. n a td the Dist rcl Superintendent of Police concerned^,:lsewlrtre may, for aoo I ,rnd sufficient reasons, direct the susPension remcval or cisr rsr,al of a Home Guard from his office.

¶183

(5) hc superintendence of the Home Guards s hall be vcsted in the I'rsl :c,or General of Police and shall be exercisei by him tltrouglt tne lo nmissioner of Police in the Presidency-krwn a't(l t trouqh the Spe ral OFficer for the special armed police units an,^j lhe l)istrict Sup rintendent of Police concerned elsewhere.'

¶184

Ruk 7 fel for consideration before a Division Bencr of tl is C,)urt in

¶185

STATE Ol ANDHRA PRADESH v/s. P.PRASAD RAo2. Tl'e Dvison

¶186

Bench, har nc consldered the provisions of the Act of 1948 r nr: th€ Rules of 1i)49, ol ;eved as under:

¶187

'l 4. there is no quarrel with the purport of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, Whi( r nandates that every order imposing p€nalty plsred )y tho Con n.rndant shall be preceded by a'reasona:le opporlunity' and thr) ielinquent HG shall be asked to show cause whl' I re penalty slror d not be imposed on hrm/her. When the rule:i :hemselves p'es ril)e the issue of a show cause notic( sr) a:; lo provide reas ,n;rble opportunity to the delinquent HG, any brea:h trereof rnLrs k,ad to invalidation of the order of punashment i|lposed by the .ornmandant. Therefore, we cannot find frult /ith he )rders pass'd by the learned Tribunal which are sutject-m.rtttr oi W.P. Ncs.'61i6, 10704, 11595, 12585 and 21661 r'f 2011. lhesr^yrrit petit )ns are, therefore, liable to be dismrssed.

¶188

201⁾ (1) AL 7(;

¶189

3,I

¶190

Whether issue of a show cause notice calling upon the delanquent HG to submit explanation against the penalty proposd to be imposed would sattsfy the principles of natural justice? We are afraid/ it would not. Though Rule 7(4) of the Rules speaks of issue of a show cause notice only against the penalty proposed to be imposed, having regard to settled rules of interpretation we do not hesitate to hold that the show cause notice contemplated under Rule 7(4) of the Rules must also spell out the allegations/charges or contraventions leveled against the HG proposed for removal/dismissal. Such a show cause notice may contain the imputations and the material which is the basis for them. As otheMise, mere issue of a show cause notice calling upon for the explanation against the penalty proposed would be futile, and unless and until the delinquent HG is aware of charges/imputations leveled against hlm, he cannot effectively put forth his case even for reduction of the punishment proposed. The principle of legality is well settled. The Legislature never intends the enforcer of the law or the executive to act arbitrarily or unreasonably. The Leglslature is presumed never to have intended the decision maker to arrive at a decision in an unfair manner. It should be the endeavour of the Court to read adherence to fairness and compliance with the principles of natural justice in every action taken under the statute or otherwise unless and until the statute itself specifically excludes the compliance with the rules of natural justice.'

¶191

The Division Bench therefore summed up that a show cause notice merely lndicating the penalty to be imposed would not answer the test of fairness in administrative action but as to whether issuance of the show cause notice containing the charges/imputations and the instances of misconduct should be followed by an enquiry as contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution was left open by the Division Bench as that issue had not been raised or argued before the Tribunal or before it

¶192

In the light of the aforestated case law, which was followed by this Court while dismissing W.P.Nos.19455, 19811 and 26715 of 2Ol4 by

¶193

:t2

¶194

corrrmcn r(ler dated 20.04.2018, there can be^{no doubtirlllthe settled} legal tos ror that a mere show cause^notice indicatin!^{lhe lenalty} proposed Lo be imposed would not suffice and cear de-a sⁿ ust^be fu rished o the delinquent Home Guard as to^{what is the (h.rge against} hin ani t re basis thereof. Any fatlure in this^{regardwoul(llnvalidlte the} orctc'r of p rnishment, as^pointed out in P.PRASAD RAO2.'flre-.forr,^{in all} the casies ci hand where the authorities^failed to^{rssue ;t} 'how^cause notce, th crders of removal visited upon the^{HonreGualdscorcerned} are straigl Larvay liable to be set aside.

¶195

tea n(d Government Pleader for Services,^{State (,f Telangana,} world ho,,e/er contend that the delay on the^part oF:fe^saidHome Guirrds n approaching the Tribunal atter their^{renlovaloucllt t') have} werghe,l . la nst them and the Tribunal ought not to^have Jrirnterl^them relir:f. Hov r:ver, we find from some of the orders^{underchalerrle t lat the} TribLrnal^paced reliance on the decision of the Supleme CrLt^{in SYED}

¶196

QAMARA^{.Ir.Therein,the orderof dismissal from sorvi(e} 'r^{a:; passed on} 22..2,194 .^--he appeal aqainst the same^{was dismis:,edon )9.04.1947.A} suit was le(l on 08.12.1952 claiming that the or('er^{oF (jrs nissllwas} contran/ t t]e regulations. One of the^{grounds raisedl)y the State was} thal th€, si d suit was barred by limitation.^{The trial C,rurt he d ir fa'rour of} the State ln this count. The appellate Court held thal f tlre^{order of} disrrssal \ a! void, the claim in the suit would^{not b,l} barrel^{:y tirne but} helcl on rn rits in favour oF the State and dismissed t^te appt^al. In^;econd appeal, th Nagpur High Court held that the suit^{war; not btrr} :d^{Ly time} and de<:re, d t on merits. It was against this decisior of tle^N,rgpl r^High Court tl'ral tle matter was brought before a Constitution l€ lch of the Supreme^(DUrt. The Constitution Bench held that the order o'di-.missal

¶197

was totally invalid as it had been made in breach of a mandatory provision in the rules. It was further observed that it had no legal extstence and it was not necessary for the employee to have the order set aside by a Court. The Bench observed that the detence of limitation, which was based only on the contention that the order had to be set aside by a Court before it became invalid, must therefore be rejected. The Supreme Court observed as under:

¶198

'We therefore hold that the order of dismissal having been made in breach of a mandatory provision of the rules subject to which only the power of punishment under section 7 could be exercised, is totally invalid. The order of dismissal had therefore no legal existence and it was not necessary for the respondent to have the order set aside by a court. The defence of limitation which was based only on the contention that the order had to be set aside by a court before lt became invalid must therefore be rejected.'

¶199

All the learned counsel appearlnq before us for the Home Guards would rely on the aforestated observations of the Constitution Bench and assert that once an order of removal was^passed agalnst a Home Guard in violation of Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1949, it was liable to be invalidated in terms of the observations made in P.PRASAD RAO2 and such an order, being inherently invalid in its very inception, could not be^protected by relying on law of limitation.

¶200

This Court finds merit in this submission.

¶201

No doubt some of the Home Guards in the cases on hand remained unmoved for decades together after^{theirremovalfromservice.} However, their failure to take steps immediately cannot enure to^the benefit of the State to the extent of^vesting the^{invalid orders} of^removal passed against such Home Guards with even a modicum of validity. No doubt, the delay on the^part of the Home Guards^{in this regard cannotbe}

¶202

¶203

allcwec t( b(l taken advantage of by them. They would^{tllcr(r'ore not be} ent tlec tc any benefits in relation to the length of service: .h;:t^{thr:y may} have rt:nc lr(:d prior to such removal from service. They tvould^{only be} entrtlec t reinstatement in service without any )enefit: '{hatsoever, including ortinuity of seryice, arrears of^pay, seniority etc.^{:L.thet,given} the fact tl at most of them have crossbd the age of 40^yea s, they^would have to b, slrbjected to a^physical test to ascertain a; to wh:t-er tley^are fit enouglto be reappointed to a uniformed service.

¶204

ln another aspect which was raised by the learne,, iiovernment Pleader vr s as to the factum of show cause notices lravinct i)e.n isjued to the delin u€nt Home Guards in some of the cases r:rr ltanc. It is unFortL na e to note that such service of show catrse notcei seems to have beer rcsofted to by the authorities through ha,nd dellr'ery, 1t some cases, siq ralures of the delinquent Home Guard ot his la rily m:mbers are stater t,r have been obtained on the office copy in proof of such service of n()tice. However, the Home Guards conc(:rned d:r/ re{reipt of such shc v cause notices. Only in one writ pelition,^,ve, fin,l that neighb,:ur ; rvere involved in the process of pastin(l of th::;hor,.,cause notices ul f,n the house of the delinquent Home Guard. Needl,: ss t,l state, it is for- tt l iruthorities to devise^proper means of service cf r;uch notices upon cleli quent Home Guards so as to have suffl(:ient prco'of seruice thereol . I the absence of such proof, the benefit of doubt r'ru:it invariably go to the delinquent Home Guard. Further, as per the edictr;rid rlown in P.PRASA ) RAO2, the show cause notice must rot on\ flenton the penalq'p cposed to be imposed but also detail th<: charg,:s agalnst the delinql en Home Guard and the imputations which f:rm th(r blsis thereof so thal h( w:uld have reasonable opportunity to meot the srn'e. This test

¶205

¶206

is not adequately met even in the cases where sho,{ cause notices were issued. In one case/ the show cause notices only called upon the delinquent Home Guard to report for duty but did not inform him of the lmpending disciplinary action or the^proposed penalty of removal from service. In none of the show causes^produced before us do we find sulficient details of the charges leveled and the basis thereof. This vagueness in the show cause notices cannot benefit the authorities at this stage.

¶207

We are also lnformed by the learned counsel appearing for the Home Guards that in each and every o.A.^presented with delay, a miscellaneous application was filed seeking condonation thereof in terms of Section 21 of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. They would assert that it was only after the condonation of delay, the O.A. was numbered and taken up for adjudication on merits. If that was so, it was for the State to take steps at the time of condonation of the delay itself to challenge the same. But, admittedly, neither the State nor its^police officials thought it fit to do so at that stage.

¶208

Learned Government Pleader would also contend that some of the Home Guards in the cases on hand rendered service for^just a^{tew years} and approached the Tribunal against their^removal from^servicelong thereafter. We find it to be so. In some of the cases, the^{delinquent Home} Guards were in service for less than three^{years(W.P.Nos.67116,} 4149411s, s97olt4, 19765114, Z63ssl14, 265OOlt4, 29278/74^and 3224115) but despite the length of service^rendered by the^delinquent Home Guards prior to removal from the rolls of the^{Home Guards} Organization, the fact^{remains that they were entitledto theprotectionof} Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 1949.^{Applicibilityof the statutory protection of}

¶209

¶210

thi! ruo i rot dependant upon the length ot ser/ice r,]rd:red by the Ho lre Gu rd prior to imposition of the penalty. Therrefore, tlre length of service re dt:red by the Home Guards has no relevarce^{rvhats,:eve-in} this con[ex1,

¶211

e;-ned Government Pleader would also^point out tal in some of the cases, the charges against the Home Guards concerned w:rTe ( rave ln nalure. H( wr]ver, even iF the charges leveled against therl tt et : se-ious, it did not e rp)wer the authorities to brush aside th€ statuti)r/^pr()tection aFforded t r lrem under Rule 7(4) of the Rules of 19.t9. Be i,Irf,tec that it is not t1e a: e of the alrthorities in any of the cases⁽⁾ⁿ hand tlrat issuance of l sh:ui cause notice and alfording a reasonable opportur ir'/ of^ilearing wa1, nct t rs,;ible and had to be waived as the case was an 3xc€'ptional on€. Be it roted that Rule 7(4) requares special reasons to te^{-ecorded in} wnlrng in lhl event this course is adopted. Furth(rr, we in,J from the ordr)rs la:^reri by the Tribunal that in several such ca;es, lib(rt)'wa;^grven to the ,rut rorities to initiate disciplinary^proceedings afresh n lcccrdance witlr thrl c re^procedure iF the authorities thought it ft to do s(:. Hcwever, without ta iing advantage of such liberty, the State . nd its, l)ol ce officials deerne(l il al)propriate to approach this Court and,)btain r;u:peniion of suc r o-d€ s rn their entirety. lt is now too late in thc d,;y for the authorilies^1:o reopen such long dead issues and hold^,:nqLrire ; afreslt.

¶212

On h( above analysis, the writ'petitions are c ismrs:,ed 1;ut r;ubject to t\e f,lll( ,ving conditions:

¶213

hr: first respondents applicants in all tllese^r:asr:; slrall be sub rc ed to a physical test to ascedain their fitness b,: fore being r:ln iu{rted in service as Home Guards. An otjertive and t'ar,pirrerlt procedure shall be adopted by th€ State irn{l its police

¶214

¶215

officials in this regard and all deserving candidates shall again be

¶216

enrolled on the rolls of the Home Guards Organizauon.

¶217

Enrollment of such deserving candidates shall, however, not have the effect of conferring upon them the benefit of continuity of service, seniority, arrears of pay etc. for all purposes. Their

¶218

enroilment would be on par with fresh appointments.

¶219

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall also stand dismissed.

¶220

No order as to costs.

¶221

SANJAY KUMA&J

¶222

M,GANGA RAO,J

¶223

Eth JUNE, 2018