1 APHC010050002023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO: 2472/2023 Between: 1. LAKKIREDDY BALAKRISHNA, S/O ESWARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD (UNDER REMOVAL), R/O D NO 1-79, TALUPURU VILLEGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HOME GUARDS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMANDANT OF HOME GUARDS, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue a writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the proceedings D.O.No.763/2017, C.No.318/H1/2016, dated 25.05.2017 on the file of the 4th respondent wherein removed the petitioner from service as home guard on the sole ground of involvement in criminal case registered in SC No.38 of 2015 and proceedings vide Rc.No.134/GHs-Esst/2018-4 Dated.04.03.2020 on the file of the 2nd respondent where in rejected the appeal of the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, against the principles of natural justice and also against Law laid down by the Hon'ble High court in WP.No.14907 of 2014 dated. 14.06.2014 and accordingly set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service forth with as Home Guard and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to suspend the proceedings D D.O.No.763/2017, C.No.318/H1/2016, dated 25.05.2017 and Rc.No.134/GHs-Esst/2018-4 Dated.04.03.2020 by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forth with into service as Home Guard and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. HARINATH REDDY SOMAGUTTA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed questioning the proceedings dated 25.05.2017 issued by the 4th respondent wherein the services of the petitioner as Home Guard were removed on the sole ground of involvement in a criminal case in S.C.No.38 of 2015 on the file of Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SC/ST Act-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Ananthapuram and proceedings dated 04.03.2020 issued by the 2nd respondent rejecting the appeal of the petitioner as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Home Guard in the year 2011 in Ananthapuram District. While the petitioner was working as Home Guard in Ananthapuram District, he was involved in a Crime No.535 of 2014 arraying as A.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SCs & STs (PoA) Act, 1989 by the Station House Officer, Ananthapur. It is further stated that after elaborate trial, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 17.10.2017, passed in S.C.No.38 of 2015. While the things stood thus, surprisingly, the respondents even before conclusion of the said criminal case have issued proceedings straightaway terminating the services of the petitioner vide the impugned proceedings dated 25.05.2017 on the 4 sole ground of involvement of the petitioner in Crime No.535 of 2014. Admittedly, in the instant case no departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner and no enquiry has also been conducted by the respondents. Only ground taken by the respondents was that the petitioner involved in the above said crime, his services were terminated, which is contrary to the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and the same was followed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 03.06.2014 in W.P.No.14907 of 2014. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the above said judgment wherein the Division Bench of this Court has considered the identical facts of the case and held that when the applicant wherein was acquitted by the competent criminal court, he has to be reinstated into service. Even in the said case, the services of the applicant was removed only on the ground of involvement of the applicant in a criminal case. Hence, in the instant case, the petitioner is also identically situated person. Further, in the instant case, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings or departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The respondents have failed to consider the facts and observations made by the competent criminal court in S.C.No.38 of 2015 vide its 5 judgment dated 17.10.20217 acquitting the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court that earlier he has approached this Court by filing W.P.No.13741 of 2019 and vide order dated 07.11.2019 the said writ petition was disposed directing the 3rd respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, but the 3rd respondent therein have not considered and not passed any orders in terms of the directions in the said W.P. Hence the present writ petition. 4. After receiving the notice in the main writ petition, the 4th respondent has filed the counter. On perusal of the averments made in the counter, it is clear that consequent upon acquittal of the petitioner from the S.C.No.38 of 2015, the respondents have considered and rejected the case of the petitioner vide orders dated 04.03.2020. But on perusal of the said orders, it is clear that the respondents have not considered the facts and observations made in the said judgment dated 17.10.2017 in S.C.No.38 of 2015, while acquitting the petitioner from the criminal case. 5. So, the respondents have not considered the facts and observations made in the judgment passed on 17.10.2017 by the competent Criminal Court and rejected the case of the petitioner 6 vide the impugned proceedings dated 04.03.2020 as the allegations in the crime are against the petitioner and based on the report after conducting preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was intimated that he was removed from service. 6. On perusal of the averments made in the counter as well as the submission of both the counsels though the petitioner was involved in a criminal case, the fact remains that the competent criminal court has conducted the trial and acquitted the petitioner from the criminal case vide judgment dated 17.10.2017. In such case, the respondents ought not to have removed the petitioner from the post of Home Guard Service, as the same is contrary to the law. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of, setting aside the impugned proceedings removing the petitioner from the service. The 2nd respondent is directed to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the judgment dated 17.10.2017 passed by the competent criminal court in S.C.No.38 of 2015 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date:08.04.2026 GK 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH WRIT PETITION NO:2472 of 2023 Dated:08.04.2026 GK