APHC010248442021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14267/2021 Between: G Krishnaiah The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief: “…..to issue writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents issuing removal order to the petiti 6653/H1/2014 dated 24 08 2015as highly illegal arbitrary and consequently set aside the removal order D.O.No.1319/2015, C.No.6653/H1/2014 permit the petitioner to attend duties wages and continuity of service and pass……” 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 14267/2021 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: N ASWARTHA NARAYANA Counsel for the Respondent(S): The Court made the following: petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for “…..to issue writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents issuing removal order to the petitioner by D O No 1319/2015 C No 6653/H1/2014 dated 24 08 2015as highly illegal arbitrary and consequently set aside the removal 6653/H1/2014, dated 24.08.2015 passed by the 2ndrespondent and permit the petitioner to attend duties as usualas a borne guard with all attending benefits with back wages and continuity of service and pass……” IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3310] THE HONOURABLE DR JUSTICE K MANMADHA RAO ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for “…..to issue writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus oner by D O No 1319/2015 C No 6653/H1/2014 dated 24 08 2015as highly illegal arbitrary and consequently set aside the removal respondent and as usualas a borne guard with all attending benefits with back 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as a home guard in the year 2012 vide proceedings DO No. 781/2012 C.No. 318/H1/2012 as HG on 19.04.2012 and he was instructed to report before Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ananthapuram on 28.06.2012 and was given Passport to the petitioner. The petitioner reported for duty and performed his duties without any blemish record. It is stated that on 01.12.2013, Deputy Transport Commissioner, Ananthapuram deputed the petitioner to report at Transport Check-post, Penugonda, Ananthapuram for further duties. The petitioner duties at the Check-post as per the instructions of Motor Vehicle Inspector are stopping the vehicles and collecting the vehicle papers from the drivers and presenting the same to Motor Vehicle Inspector for verification. The petitioner discharged the duties with utmost satisfaction of superiors without any blemish record. It is stated that, on 21.12.2013, while the petitioner was performing his duties at Check-post, Penugonda along with one Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector, B. Subbarayudu and Transport Constable G. Babaiah, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, Ananthapuram along with his staff came and checked the Transport Check-post office, Penugonda, Ananthapuram. At that time, the petitioner was on the road performing his duty. Then the DSP, ACB checked the petitioner and found cash Rs. 200/- on the petitioner andquestioned about the money, the petitioner answered that the money is used for bus fare as he resides in GollalaDoddi Village, Gunthakal Mandal. Despite the checking of the petitioner by the DSP, ACB and the mentioning of cash Rs. 200/- which was in the possession of the 3 petitioner in the cash register of Check-post office, the ACB officials stated in the Proceedings that the petitioner was caught with illegal possession of Rs.8,500/- which he collected as mamools from the vehicle drivers which were passing through the Check-post, this whole statement is a false and mis- constructed fact against the petitioner.Later on, the Reserve Sub-Inspector of Home Guards, Ananthapuram issued a notice under C. No. 6653/H1/2014 dated 16.12.2014 to the petitioner and ordered for his explanation for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.12.2014 pleading his ignorance. Despite the explanation of the Petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was conducted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mahila P.S., Ananthapuram and questioned the petitioner, forwhich, the petitioner explained and stated all the facts to the officer. Again on 14.03.2015, Reserve Sub-Inspector of Home Guards, Ananthapuram issued a notice under C. No. 6653/H1/2014 dated 16.12.2014 to the petitioner stating that the inquiry officer has proved the allegations against the petitioner despite the explanation given by the petitioner.The 2ndrespondent passed a Suspension Order vide D. O. No. 526/2015, C.No.6653/H1/2014, dated 16.03.2015 basing on the false allegations against the petitioner stating that he was involved in corrupt and clandestine practices by collecting illegal amounts from the drivers passing through Check-post and later issued proceedings vide D.O. No. 1319/2015 C. No. 6653/H1/2014 to the petitioner removing the petitioner name from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization, Ananthapuram District. It is further stated that, one Asst. Motor Vehicle Inspector B. Subbarayudu who was also 4 inquired by the Inquiry Officer was later re-instated into the service vide G.O.Rt.No.193 dated 06.04.2016. But without any proper enquiry, the respondent authorities took a grave decision by removing the services of the petitioner from the office and the removal order was placed on 24.08.2015. Questioning the same, the present writ petition came to be filed. 3. The counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. While denying all the allegations made in the petition, inter alia, contended that, as stated by the petitioner in the affidavit that this respondent without conducting proper enquiry and without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner and illegally terminated the services are all false. In this regard it is to state that after receipt of the report from the ACB, this respondent call for an explanation from the petitioner vide C" No. 6653/411/2014 dated 16.12.2014 and the petitioner received the same on 17.12.2014. Further the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 20.12.2014 and after receipt of the said explanation, this respondent has issued a memo by appointing the DSP. Mahila PS. Ananthapuramu as enquiry officer vide C.No. 6653/111/2014 1:20.01.2015 and the DSP, Mahila PS., Ananthapuramu has submitted his enquiry report in the March-2015, and after receipt of the said enquiry report, this respondent called for an explanation from the petitioner vide CNo.6653/11/2014 dated 14.03.2015, and accordingly, the petitioner has submitted an explanation. Being not satisfied with the same, this respondent has issued proceedings by removing the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guard Organization, Ananthapuramu vide C.No.6653/H1/HGs/ATP/2014 5 dt.05.08.2015 and the entire procedure has done according to Law and the allegation to the contra are all false and denied. It is also denied by this respondent that this respondent has terminated the services of the petitioner dated 15.08.2015 without following the due procedure. In this regard it is to state that this respondent has issued a show cause notice calling for an explanation from the petitioner and later the petitioner has submitted his explanation and after receipt of the said explanation the Committee has verified the grounds of the complaint preferred by the Deputy Transport Commissioner, suspension orders, orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, show cause notice and the explanation given by the petitioner and after perusal of the entire records the selection and removal Committee of Home Guards Organisation headed by this respondent has issued proceedings on 05.08.2015 by terminating the services of the petitioner from the rolls of Home Goard Organization, the Committee has followed the due process of Law and the allegation that the petitioner was not involved the any malpractices are all false and denied.It is further stated that a show cause notice dated 16.12.2014 was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner has submitted the detailed explanation dt:20.12.2014 and after perusing the entire material only the orders of removal are passed and the allegations to the contra are all false and denied. It is further stated that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Addl. Director General of Police, Mangalagiri on 03.02.2020 against the orders of this respondent and the Addl. Director General of Police, Mangalagiri has rejected the appeal mechanically without 6 taking the grounds of appeal into consideration are all false and denied. Further, after due enquiry only, necessary proceedings were issued. Therefore, there is no iota of evidence in support of the allegations made by the petitioner in this petition and hence prayed to dismiss the same. 4. Heard Sri N. Aswartha Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. 5. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents made in the petition, argued that, it is true that the petitioner approached the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by filing an O.A. No. 12 7180/2015 and O.A. No. 1537/2018 and both the applications were dismissed against the petitioner. He mainly contended that, in the Proceedings prepared by the ACB Officials, it was stated that they collected statements from drivers of the vehicles and in the statement one Y. Sreenivasulu, cleaner of lorry bearing no. AP02 6011 gave his statement against the petitioner. But the lorry bearing No.AP02 6011 is not registered with any lorry as it is registered with a Motorcycle way back in the year 1999 of Ananthapuram District. This clearlyshows that the Proceedings prepared by the ACB officials is full of incorrect erroneous facts against the petitioner. He further submits that despite the explanations provided by the petitioner to the authorities concerned, the respondent authorities without conducting proper enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice terminated the services of the petitioner from 24.08.2015 by Superintendent of Police by Vide 7 D.O. No. 1319/2015, C. No. 6653/11/2014, which is illegal and arbitrary. He further submits that the respondent authority without giving proper opportunity to the petitioner to defend the case himself by following principles of natural justice one sidedly acted and erroneously terminated the service of the petitioner from his employment. Therefore, learned counsel requests this Court to pass similar order in this writ petition also. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents while denying the contents made by the petitioner, reiterated the contents made in the counter affidavit. He further submits that the Government of Andhra Pradesh had issued a G.O, vide G.O.Ms.No.99 Home (Police.11) Department dated: 15.04.1999 by constituting a committee for Recruitment of Home Guards as per the Home Guards Act 1989 and as per Sec.21 the concerned authority can suspend, remove or dismiss from the organization and the certificate of appointment shall be seized. He further submits that the Supdt. of Police concerned is the Chairman of the said Committee and hence the Supdt. of Police was having authority either to remove or dismiss the said Home Guard from services, if he found guilty of any misconduct and breach of discipline and hence as per the said G.0, the applicant was removed from the services. Subsequently, on 15.02.2012 the Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad has issued Circular Memorandum vide Re.No.167/HGs/Esu1/2012 dated: 15.02.2012 by constituting committee comprising of Supdt. of Police as Chairman, Addl. S.P. of the neighboring District and Commandant Home Guards as Members and 8 in that circular it is declare that in cases of disciplinary actions a reasonable opportunity has to be given at preliminary enquiry and at the stage of imposition of penalty this applicant was removed from services and hence the petition is not maintainable and hence opposed for allowing the writ petition. Learned Government pleader further submits that Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches, since the petitioner was removed from the voluntary organization on 24.08.2015, and after lapse of 06 years, he filed present writ petition, without explaining any sufficient reasons, it appears, the petitioner has not averred in his affidavit, why delay occurred in approaching the Hon'ble Court. In fact, adhering the procedure laid down in Rules in vogue, he was terminated from voluntary organization, there is no illegality or latches in issuing the impugned order. Hence the present writ petition is not maintainable and prayed to dismiss the same. 7. In Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others 1 regarding maintainability of writ petition in the context of availability of alternative and efficacious remedy, the Apex Court held thus: 14. The power to issue prerogative writs under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and is not limited by any other provision of the Constitution. This power can be exercised by the High Court not only for issuing writs in the nature of Habeas Corpus, Mandamus, prohibition, Qua Warranto and Certiorari for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights contained in Part III of the Constitution but also for "any other purpose". 15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this court not to operate as a bar 1 AIR 1999 SC 22 = MANU/SC/0664/1998 9 in atleast three contingencies, namely, where the Writ Petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged (emphasis supplied). The instant case falls in one of the exceptions carved out by the Apex Court, the principles of natural justice is a casualty here. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusing the material available on record, without touching the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition by setting aside the impugned order in this writ petition and also inclined to remand back the matter to the respondent authorities concerned for proper appreciation, while declaring the impugned proceedings vide Order D.O.No.1319/2015, C.No.6653/H1/2014, dated 24.08.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent as illegal and arbitrary. 9. 9. Accordingly, the impugned proceedingsvide Order D.O.No.1319/2015, C.No.6653/H1/2014, dated 24.08.2015 issued by the 2nd respondent are hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the concerned respondent authorities to pass appropriate fresh reasoned orders, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of eight (08) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 10 11. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed. _________________________ DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J. Date : 28 -03-2025 Gvl 11 HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITON No.14267 of 2021 Date :28. 03.2025 Gvl