APHC010708602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION Nos: 41778 & 42503 of 2022 WRIT PETITION NO: 41778 OF 2079 Between: 1. L.C.Santhosh Kumar, S/o;L.C. Mani, aged 38 years, Occ. Home Guard 1701, R/o.D.No.4-2151, Voticheruvu Greamspet, Chittoor District. 2. S.Puruthotham, S/o.R. Shanmugam, Aged about 32 Guard 1488, R/o.D.No.23-648, S.V. Colony, K.R.Palli, Chittoor District. 3. D.Raja, S/o.Devaiah, Aged about 33 R/o.D.No.2_5-8/2, Valiyappa nagar, Greamspet, Chittoor District. 4. G.Vikram, S/o.G.Gopi, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Home Guard 1019 R/0.D.N0.2-86/A, Pothaplyam Village, Pilavaripalli Chittoor District. 5. Sanath Kumar, S/o.A.Mohan Raj, Aged about 30 't419/A, R/o.D.No.25-113, Valliyapa nagar, Greamspet, Chitoor District 6. K. Dilli Babu, S/o.K.Guruppa, Aged about 34 R/O.D.NO.21-301/A, D.Venagatapalli, T.Chavatapalli, Chittoor Mandal, Chittoor District. 7. K.Venkatesh, S/o.C.Kannan, aged about 33 R/o.D.No. 15-2728/1, Ambedkar Nagar, Greamspet, Chittoor District. ^ I A years, Occ. Home years, Occ. Home Guard 1635, Post, Praia Mandal, years, Occ. Home Guard years, occ. Home Guard 1412, years, Occ. Home Guard 1404, 8. D.Nagaraja, S/o.D.Krishnaiah, aged 32 years, Occ. Home Guard 1648, P^ddadhagropadu, Pakala mandat, Chittoor District. 9. J.Pradeep, S/o.J.Kodandarao, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Home Guard 1299, R/o.D.No.4-133, M.Bandapalli, Puthalapattu Mandat, Chittoor District. 10. Vadivet Kumar, Aged 39 years, Occ. Home Guard 1656 R/o.D.No.22-631/ 1, Sambaiah Vittage, C.K.Patti Post, Chittoor District. ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principat Secretary to Government, Home Department, A. P. Secretariat, Vetagapudi Guntur District. , 2. The Additionat Director Generat of Potice, Mangatagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Commandant, Home Guards District. Amaravati Police Head Quarters, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Kurnool 4. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. ...Respondents 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 to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4*’ respondent in issuing the removal order vide C.NO.B7/60/HGS/2022 dt.09.12.2022 by which petitioner removed from the rolls of home guard organization on the ground of his initial appointment order was. are not original without conducting any proper enquiry as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of powers, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and also include his name in the rolls of home guards original list with all consequential benefits lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 removal order in C.No.B7/60/HGS/2022 dt.09.12.2022 issued the 4*^ respondent pending disposal of the writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. AVANIJA INUGANTI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 APHC010721252022 by WRIT PETITION NO: 42503 OF 2022 Between: 1. T.Lakshmana'Murthy, S/o.Krishna Murthy, Aged about 32 years, Occ Home Guard 1699, R/o.D.No.3169-13-68-A Madanapalle, Annamayya District. 2. M.Prasanna Kumar, S/o.Muniyachari, Aged about 28 years, Occ Home Guard 1478, R/o.D.No.1-125/C, Mapashi Post and Village, Chittoor District. 3. G.Nagendra Babu, S/o.G.Jayaramaiah, Aged about 34 years, Occ Home Guard 1465, R/o. P. Reddyvaripalli, Pakala Mandal, Chittoor District. 4. S.Chitti Babu, S/o.S.Govindaiah, Aged about 37 years, Occ Home Guard 1700, R/o.D.No.5-6, Pochepall Village and Post, Chittoor District. 5. M.Satheesh Kumar, S/o.S.Muniyam, Aged about 28 years, Occ Home Guard 1147, R/o.D.No.5-34/A, Indranagar, Santhapet, Chittoor District. 6. M.Rajesh, S/o.D.Munirathnam, Aged about 30 years, Occ Home Guard No.1455, R/o.D.No.4-1003/6, Kazoor, Chittoor District. 7. P.Udaya Kumar, S/a.Iate Subramanyam, Aged about 28 years, Occ Home . Guard No.1496, R/o.I.K.Reddy Palli, G.R.Palli Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor District. 8. S.Shate, S/o.Swamynaidu, Aged about 31 No. 1651, R/o.D.No.l-104/B, Mapassi Village, Chittoor District. 9. M.Hariprasad, Aged about 36 r/o.D.No.4-26, M.Gollapalli Village, Muttukoru Post, Chittoor District i 10, S.Habebulla, S/o.S.AIIabaksh, Aged about 30 No,1669/A, R/o.D.No.25-559/289, New Prasanth Nagar, Greamspet, Chittoor District. 11. C.Kishore, S/o.Sivaiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ Home Guard No. 1379, . R/O.D.N0.2-58/A, Kalavagunta Village and Post, Penumur District. 12. A. Sumanth, Aged about 33 R/o.D.No.10-31, Bottauvaturi, Gudipala, Chittoor District 13. B.Nagarjuna, Aged about 33 R/o.D.No.1038, Buttivalluru Guddipala Mandal, Chittoor District f 14. S.Jyothieeswar, Aged about 34 R/o.D.No.3-36, Thelagunglapatu Village, Nampalli Chittoor District. 15. N.Sudhkar, S/o.N.Subramanyam, Aged about 42 No.1626, R/o.D.No.9-4, Thippannapalli Mandal, Chittoor District. 16. S.Rajesekhar, S/o.K.Srinivasulu, Aged about 31 No.1036, R/o.D.No.16-421, MGR Street, Chittoor District years, Occ Home Guard years, ■ Occ Home Guard No. 1599, years, Occ Home Guard Mandal, Chittoor years, Occ Home Guard No. 1506/A, years, Occ Home Guard No.1612 years, Occ Home Guard No. 1459/A, Post, Irala Mandal, years, Occ. Home Guard K.Oaddepalli Post, Puthalapattu years, Occ. Home Guard 17. B.Madhu Babu, S/o.B.Rathnaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Home Guard No.1624/A, R/o.D.No.2-36, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. Muthurevulu Post Muthurevulu Village, 18. M.Murali Mohan, S/o.late M.Mani, Aged about 41 years, Occ. Home Guard No. 1452, R^o. Muthurevulu Post Muthurevulu Village, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. 19. P.Naresh, S/o.P.Sivaiah, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Home Guard • No. 1625, R/o.D.No. 10-72, Thippanapalle, K.Oddepalli, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. 20. P.Gopinath, S/o.P.Rajendra Reddy, Aged about 34 years, Occ. Home Guard No.1419, R/o. D.No.10-555, Anmankoit Street, Chittoor District. 21. R.Seena, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Home Guard 1701/A, R/o.D.No.23- 576, Satyanarayanapuram, K.R.Palli, Chittoor District. I 22. C.R.Pavan Kumar, S/o.Rajendra Reddy, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Home Guard No.1434, R/d.D.No.24-303, S.N.Puram, K.R.Palli, Chittoor District. 23. T.Hemadri, S/o.Srinivasulu, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Home Guard 1310, R/o.D.No.2058, G.D.Nellore Chittoor District. 24. D.Kumara Sv\/amy Naidu, S/o.Ramanaidu, Aged about 45 years, Occ. Home Guard No. 1245, Vijayanagar Colony, RVS Nagar, Muthirewall Mandal, Chittoor District. 25. P.Narendra Reddy, S/o.Sankar Reddy, Aged about 37 years, Occ. Home Guard 1458, R/o.D.No.1-0, Marepathi, Chittoor District. 26. J.Thulasi Rapn, S/o.Jevarathnam, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Home Guard 1344, R/o.D.No.27-702, J.K.Palli, Chittoor District. 27. C.Hari Krishna, S/o.late C.Balaramaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Home Guard 1466, R/o.D.No.3-254/G, Bhramhama Street, Greamspet, Chittoor District. . 28. MD. Burhan, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Home Guard 1031 2656, Ambedkarnagar, Greamspet Post, Chittoor District. 29. K.Balaji, S/o.K.Kotti, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Home Guard 1714 R/o.D.no.5-319, Old Brahmin Street, Santhapet, Chittoor District. 30. E.Narasimhulu, S/o.Narayanappa, Aged about 39 Guard 1499, R/o.D.No.5-42/a, Jowripalli, Venkatagirikota, Chittoor District. i 31. C. Chandra Sekhar, S/o.D.Chinnabba, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Home Guard 1459, R/o.D-No. 1-258, Mandal, Chittoor District. 32. K. Rukmangadha, S/ o.K. Govindaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Home . Guard 1058, R/o.D.No.9-A1, Maviyanam Palli Village, Pullikollu, Penomur, Chittoor District. 33. T. Siva Kumar, S/o.T.Chandraiah, Aged about 38 Guard 1444, R/o.D.No.2-155, D.Thodakara Village Mandal, Chittoor District. 34. N. Vijay, S/o.N.Krishnaiah, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Home Guard 1490 R/o.Sanyasipalli'Village, Kalavunta Post, Penumur Mandal, Chittoor District. 35. P. Chandrababu, S/o.Venkatappa, Aged about 43 years, Occ. Home Guard 1385, District. 36. S. Sameer John, S/o.Shaik Shareef, Aged about 30 Guard 1635/A, R/o.D.No.1-305, Kollammagudi Veedhi District. 37. R. -Nagoor Basha, S/o.R.Anwar Basha, Aged about 30 Guard 1696, R/o.D.No.3-45, C.B.Road, Greamspet, Chittoor District. R/o.D.No.15- years, Occ. Home 189 Kothapalli Village and Post, Guddipalu years, Occ. Home Post, Thavanampalli Thellagundlapalle, Nampalle Post, Irala Mandal, Chittoor years, Occ. Home Kattamanchili, Chittoor years, Occ. Home 38. K. Bhushan R^ddy, S/o.K.Chinapa Reddy, Aged about 30 Home Guard No.1706, R/o.D.No.1-20, Bandamedavuru andMandal, Chittoor District.' 39. E. Sunil, S/o.Emanuel, Aged about 31 years, Occ. Home Guard 1269, R/o D.No.2-1022/4 Readpet, Kongareddypalli Chittoor District. 40. N. R. Rajesh, S/o.Ramesh, Aged about 28 years, Occ. Home Guard 1517/A, R/o.D.No.5, Nuruzila, Gudipala Mandal, Chittoor District. 41. G.Yugandhar, S/o.G.Subramannaidu, Aged about 33 years, Occ. Home Guard No. 1671, R/o.D.No. 1-18, S.Puram Mandal, Chittoor District. 42. K.S.Venkatesh, S/o.KSV Bramanyam, Occ Home Guard R/o.D.No.4-2145, Oticheruvu, Greamspet, Chittoor District. 43. K.S.Thirumalesh, S/o.K.Subramanyam Aged about 31 years, Occ Home Guard 1479 R/o.D.No.4-2145, Oticheruvu, Greanspet, Chittoor District. . 44. M.Rajesh, S/o.M.Mani, Aged about 33 years, Occ Home Guard 1438, R/o.D.No.20851/1, Venakteswar colony, K.R.Palle, Chittoor District. 45. C.Rajesekhar, S/o.Jayachandrareddy, Aged about 27 years, Occ Home Guard 1473, R/o.d.No.25-470/ 1, Vellore Road, Chittoor District. 46. B.Manohar, S/o.late Bhamaiah, Aged about 44 years, Occ Home guard 1712, R/o.D.No.15-3274, C.K.Road, Chittoor District. I 47. P.D.Vasu, S/o.P.Devarajulu, Aged about 29 years, Occ home Guard 1639, R/o.p.No.6-47, Padamavathinagar, Nagari, Chittoor District. 48. S.Dhana Sekhar, S/o.Subramanyam, Aged about 1235, Occ Home Guard 1235, R/o.D.No. 15-2894, Ambethulunagar, Greanspet, Chittoor District. 49. V. Suman, S/o.V.Venkatamuni, Aged about 32 years, Occ Home Guard 1417, R/o.D.No.8-34, District. years, Occ. CR Kandriga Post No.1679, K.C.Icandiganalaganpalli, Bangarupalyam, Chitoor 50. S.Surendra Kumar, S/o.Sampath Kumar, Aged about 36 years, Occ home Guard 1720, R/o.D.No.16-23, Tirumalakuppam, Puttur, Chittoor District. 51. S.P.Venkatesulu, S/o.K.S.Prem Kumar, Aged about 29 years, Occ. Home Guard 1636, R/o.D.No.4-1037/1, Pensioners Colony, Kajoor, Chittoor District. 52. .V.Kiran Babu,'S/o.Venkataswamy, Aged about 34 Guard 1651/A, R/o.D.No.4-2142, Oticheruvu, Greanspet, Chittoor District. 53. K.Chinnabba, S/o.K.Gangaiah, Aged about 38 years, Occ. Home Guard • 1638, R/o.D.No.4-2146, Votichervu, Greanspet, Chittoor District. 54. M.Hemanth Ggiri, S/o.late Mani, Aged about 30 1586, R/o.D.No.14-547 MGR Street, Chittoor District. 55. C.Gowtham Kumar, S/o.C.Chinnaswamy, Aged about 39 years, Occ. Home Guard 1440, R/ o.Dalavaipalli, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. 56. S.Raja, S/o,N.Sekhar, Aged about 34 R/o.D.No.25-93, Valliyappanagar, Greanspet, Chittoor District I 57. K.Narendra, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Home Guard 1658, Kodikotta, Madavaram, Yadamari Mandal, Chittoor District. 58. N.Vinod Kumar, Aged about 32 years, Occ. Home Guard 1224, Roosipalli, Thonapali, Puthalapattu Mandal, Chittoor District. 59. B.Barath, Aged about 30 years, Occ. Home Guard 1439, Reddivari street. Nagari, Mandal, Chittoor Distrcit. 60. P.Gnana Sekhar, Aged about 29 Marikayanapalli, Penmur Mandal, Chittoor District. 61. Arun Kuma/, S/o.K.Komaiah, Aged about 29 1700/A R/o.D.No.9-20/a, Mariyanupalli, Penumur Mandal years, Occ. home years, Occ. Home Guard years, Occ. Home guard 1652, years, Occ. Home Guard 1479, years, Occ. Home Guard Chittoor District. 62. P.Naveen Kumar, S/o.P.Pondraiah, Aged about 35 years, Occ. Home Guard 1411, R/o.D.No.3-113, Puthalapattu, Eacheruvu Mandal, Chittoor District. 63. V.Adi Sankhar, S/o.K.Venkatappa, Aged about 38 Guard 1219, R/o.D.No.4-58, Ambedkar Nagar, Pafameru, Chittoor District. 64. D.Kumar, Aged about 36 years, Occ. Home Guard 1372 Mukapakshi, Chittoor District. years, Occ. Home , R/o.D.no.1-36/1, ...Petitioners AND 1. The State of Andhra f^radesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, A.P.Secretariat, • Guntur District. 2. The Additional Director General of Police, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Commandant, Home Guards District. Velagapudi, Amaravati, Police Head Quarters, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Kurnool 4. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith praying that in the the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4‘^ respondent in issuing the removal order vide C.NO.B7/60/HGS/2022 dt.09.12.2022 by which petitioner was removed from the rolls of home guard organization on the ground of his initial appointment order are not original without conducting any proper enquiry as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of powers, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and also include his name in the rolls of home guards original list with all consequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2027 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 removal order in C,No.B7/60/HGS/2022 dt.09.12.2022 issued by the 4"’ respondent pending disposal of the writ petition, lA NO: 1 OF 202.^ 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 grant leave to the petitioners to file reply affidavit in W.P.No.42503 of 2022. Counsel for the Petitioners: M/s. AVANIJA INUGANTI Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES -1 The Court made the following common order: APHC01070S602022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 41778/2Q22 Between; 1. L.C.SANTHOSH KUMAR, S/0,L. OCC. HOME GUARD 1701 GREAMSPET CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. S.PURUTHOTHAM,. S/ O.R. SHANMUGAM AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1488, R/0 D NO 23-648 COLONY, K R PALLI. CHITTOOR DISTRICT MAN I, AGED 38 YEARS. R/O.D.NO.4-2151 VOTtCHERUVU S V 3. D.RAJA,, S/O DEVAIAH. AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS OCC. HOME 1635, R/0.D.NO.25-8/2, VALIYAPPA NAGAR GUARD GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. G.VIKRAM,, S/O.G.GOPI AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC. HOME 1019, R/O.D.NO.2-86/A, POTHAPLYAM VILLAGE. PILAVARIPALLI POST, PRALAMANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 5. SANATH KUMAR,, S/O.A.MOHAN RAJ, YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1419/A, R/O.D.NO.25-113 VALLIYAPANAGAR, GREAMSPET, CHITOOR DISTRICT GUARD AGED ABOUT 30 6. K. DILL! BABU,, S/O.K.GURUPPA. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS OCC. HOME GUARD D. V E NA GATA PA L LI, T. C HAVATAPA L LI CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1412 R/O.D.NO.21-301/A, CHITTOOR MANDAL, 7. K.VENKAi ESH,, S/O.C.KANNAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. HOME GUARD 1404, R/O.D.NO. 15-2728/1 AMBEDKAR NAGAR, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. D NAGARAJA,, S/O.D KRISHNAIAH, AGED 32 YEAPW OC 8 OCC 2 HOME GUARD 1548, R/0.D.N0.13-32, KOTHAVADIPALL!, PEDDADHAGROPADU, PAKALA MANDAL, CHiTTOOR DISTRICT. 9. J.PRADEEP, S/O.J.KODANDARAO, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1299, R/0.D.f\l0.4-133, M.BANDAPALLI, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10.VADIVEL KUMAR,, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1656 R./O.D.NO.22-631/ 1, SAMBAIAH VILLAGE, C.K.PA.LLI POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITiONER(S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, A. P. SECRETARIAT VELAGAPUDL AMARAVATI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2.THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. POLICE 3.THE COMMANDANT HOME GUARDS, KURNOOL RANGE. KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR, DISTRICT. HITTOOR ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 VA/rit, or direction more particularly one in the nature of \Nn{ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4th respondent in issuing the rem.oval order vide C.No.B7/60/HGS/202 2 dt.09.12.2022 by which petitioner was removed from the rolls of home guard organization on the ground of his initial appointment order are not original without conducting any proper enquiry as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of powers, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and also include his name in the roils of home guards original list with all consequential benefits and to pass !A NO: 1 OF 2022 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 3 pleased pleased to suspend the removal order in C.iNo.B7/60/HGS/ 2022 dt.09.12.2022 issued by the 4th respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the PetitionertS): I.AVANIJAINUGANTi Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I APHC01O721252022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] MONDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TVYENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 42503/2022 Between: 1. T LAKSHMANA MURTHY, S/ O,KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD 1699, R/0.D.N0.3169- 13-68-A MADANARALLE, ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 2. M.PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O.MUNIYACHARi, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD 1478, R/O.D.NO.1-125/C, MAPASHI POST AND VILLAGE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 3. G.NAGENDRA BABU, S/O.G.JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD 1465. R/ O. P. RE DDYVARI.PALLI, PAKALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 4. S.CHITTI BABU, S/O.S.GOVINDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD 1700, R/O.D.NO.5-6, POCHEPALL VILLAGE AND POST. CHITTOOR DISTRICT, u. M,SATHEESH KUMAR YEARS, OCC INDRANAGAR, SANTHAPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, . S/O.D.MUNIRATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O.D,NO.4-1003/6, KAZOOR S/O.S.MUNIYAM, AGED ABOUT 28 HOME GUARD 1147, R/O.D.NO.5-34/A 6. M.RAJES OCC HOME GU.ARD NO 1455 I I n. 4 CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 7. P.UDAYA KUMAR,, S/A.LATE SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD N0.1496, R/O.I.K.REDDY PALLI, G.R.PALLI POST, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 8. S.SHATE,, S/O.SWAMYNAIDU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO. 1651, R/O.D.NO.1-104/B, MAPASSt VILLAGE, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 9. M.HARiPRASAD,, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO.1599, R/O.D.NO.4-26, M.GOLLAPALLI VILLAGE, MUTTUKORU POST, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 10.S.HABEBULLA,, S/O.S.ALLABAKSH, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO.1669/A, R/O.D.NO.25-559/289, NEW PRASANTH NAGAR, GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 11 C.KISHORE,, S/O.SIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO.1379, R/O.D.NO.2-58/A, KALAVAGUNTA VILLAGE AND POST, PENUMUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT '2 A. SUMANTH,, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO. 1506/A, R/O.D.NO.10-31, BOTTAUVALURI, GUDIPALA, HITTOOR DISTRICT. 13. B.NAGARJUNA,, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO.1612, R/O.D.NO.1038, BUTTIVALLURU GUDDIPALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 14 S.JYOTHIEESWAR,, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD NO.1459/A, R/O.D.NO.3-36, THELAGUNGLAPATU VILLAGE, NAMPALLI POST, IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 15.N.SUDHKAR,, S/0.N.SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD N0.1626, R/O.D.NO.9-4, THIPPANNAPALLI K.OADDEPALLI POST, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 16 S.RAJESEKHAR,, S/O.K.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. OCC. HOME GUARD NO.1036, R/0.D.NO.16-421, MGR STREET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 17.B MADHU BABU,, S/O.B.RATHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCC. HOME GUARD NO.1624/A, R/O.D.NO.2-36 MUTHUREVULU POST MUTHUREVULU VILLAGE PU lHALAPATTU MANDAL, CHiTTOOR DISTRICT. • S/O.LAl E M.iVlANl. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. OCC. HOME GUARD NO. 1452. R/0. MUTHUREVULU POST MUTHUREVULU VILLAGE, PUTHALAPATTU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 19.RNARESH,, S/O.RSIVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD NO. 1625, R/0.D.NO. 10-72 K.ODDEPALLL RUTHALAPATTU MANDAL. DISTRICT. 20.R.GOPINA.TH,, S/O.P.RAJENDRA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD NO.1419, R/0.D.NO.10-555, ANMANKOIL STREET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 18.M.MURALI MOHAN THiPPANAPALLE, CHITTOOR 21 R.SEENA,. .AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD 1/01/A, R/0.D.NO.23-576, SATYANARAYANAPURAM. K.R.PALLI. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 22 C.R.PAVAN KUMAR,. S/ O.RAJENDRA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. OCC. HOME GUARD NO.1434, R/OD.NO.24-303, S N PURAM. K.R.PALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 23 THEMADRI.. S/O.SRINIVASULU, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1310, R/0.D.NO.2058. G.D.NELLORE CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 24 D.KUMARA SWAMY NAIDU,, S/O.RAMANAIDU. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD NO.1245, ViJAYANAGAR COLONY, RVS NAGAR, MUTHIREV^/ALL MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 25.P.NARENDRA REDDY,, S/O.SANKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1458, R/O.D.NO. 1-0. MAREPATHI. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 26.J.THULASI YEARS, J.K.PALLI, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 27.C.HARI KRISHNA., S/O.LATE C.BALAR.AMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1466. R/0.D.N0.3-254/G, BHRAMHAMA STREET, GREAMSPET. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. RAM,, S/O.JEVARATHNAM, AGED ABOUT 30 OCC. HOME GUARD 1344. R/O.D.NO.27-702 28.MD. BURHAN.. AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1031, R/O.D.NO. 15-2656, AMBEDKARNAG.AR, GREAMSPET POST. r' LJITTAA,^ I I J I J W W R ro i STR \r^-r lo i . I 29 K.BALAJi., S/O.K.KOTTi, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOME UARD 1714, R/OD.NO.5-319, OLD BRAHMIN STREET, SANTHAPET. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. r- KD 30.E.NARASIMHULU,, S/ O.NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1499, R/0.D.N0.5-42/A JOWRIPALLI, VENKY\TAGIRIKOTA, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 31.C CHANDRA SEKHAR,, S/ O.D.CHINN-ABBA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1459, R/O.D.NO. 1-258, 189 .KOTHAPALLI VILLAGE AND POST, GUDDIPALU MANDAL CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 32. K. RUKMANGADHA,, S/ O.K. GOVfNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. MAVIYANAM PALLi CHITTOOR DISTRICT 33 T SIVA KUMAR, S/O.T.CHANDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 OCC HOME GUARD 1444. R/0.D.NO.2-155, D.THODAKARA VILLAGE POST. THAVANAMPALLI DISTRICT HOME GUARD 1058, VILLAGE, PULLIKOLLU R/O.D.N0.9-A1. PENOMUR. V EARS. MANDAL. CHITTOOR 34 N VIJAY S/0 N KRISHNAIAH. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1490 R/0 SANYASIPALLI VILLAGE, KALAVUNTA POST PENUMUR MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 35 P CHANDRABABU, S/O.VENKATAPPA YEARS OCC. HOME GUARD 1385, THELLAGUNDLAPALLE, NAMPALLE POST IRALA MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. AGED ABOUT 43 36 S SAMEER JOHN, S/O.SHAIK SHAREEF, AGED ABOUT 30 HOME GUARD 1635/A. R/O.D.NO.1-305. VEEDHI, KATTAMANCHILI, CHITTOOR YEARS, OCC. KOLLAMMAGUDI DISTRICT. 37. R. NAGOOR BASRA, S/O.R.ANWAR BASRA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1696, R/O.D.NO.3-45, C.B.ROAD. GREAMSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 38. K BHUSHAN REDDY, S/O.K.CHINAPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 30 HOME GUARD NO.1706, R/O.D.NO.1-20, MANDAL, YEARS, OCC BANDAMEDAVURU CR KANDRIGA POST AND CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 39 E. SUNIL, S/0.EMANUEL, 7aGED ABOUT 31 YEARS OCC HOME GUARD 1269. R/0 D.NO.2-1022/4 READPET, / KONGAREDDYPALLi CHITTOOR DiSTRiCT, 40. N O RAJESH, S/O.R.AMESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/0.D..N0.5, NURUZILA, GUDIPALA J \ . r\r^ w o c. Ei0^ylE GUARD 1517/A. MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. EG.YUGANDHAR. S/O.G.SUBRAMANNAIDU. AGED YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD NO.1671 S.PURAM MANDAL. CHITTOOR DiSTRICT. /I 1 ABO I \-T 33 U I R,/O.D.N0.1-18. 42. K.S.VENKATESH,. S/O.KSV BRAMANYAM, OCC HOME GUARD GREA^ylSPET, NO. 1679, R.^O.D.NO.4-2145, CTICHERUVU CHITTOOR DISTRICT 43. K.S.THIRUMALESH. S/0 K.SUBRAMANYAM AGED ABOUT YEARS, OTICHERUVU 44.M.RAJESH,. S/O M.MAN! AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC HOME GUARD 1438 R/0 D NO 20851/1. VENAKTESVVAR COLONY. K.R.PALLE, CHITTOOR DiSTRICT. 45.C.RAJESEKHAR 27 YEARS, OCC HO.ME VELLORE ROAD CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 46.B.MANOHAR.. S/O LATE BHAMAIAH. AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OCC HOME GUARD 1712. R/0.D.NO.15-3274 CHITTOOR DISTRICT 47 P.D.VASU,, S/O.P DEVARAJULU. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. OCC HOME GUARD 1639. R/0,D.NO.6-47, NAGARi, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. OCC HOME GUARD 1479 REANSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. R/O.D.NO.4-2145 . w S O J.AYACHANDRAREDDY. AGED ABOUT GUARD 1473. R/0.D.NO.25-470/ 1 C.K.ROAD, PADAMA'vCX.TH IN AGAR 48. S.DHANA SlKHAR., S/ Q SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 12'^5 OCC HOME GUARD AMBETHULUNAGAR, GREANSPET. CHITTOOR DiSTRiCT 1235, R/0.D.NO.15-2894 49.V. SUMAN,, S/O.V.VENKATAMUNI, AGeD ABOUT 32 YEARS OCC HOME GUARD K. C. ICA N DI GA N A LA GA N PA L L I, BAN GA R U PA LYAM DISTRICT. 1417, R/O.D.NO.8-34, CHITOOR 50.S.SURENDRA KUMAR 36 YEARS, OCC HOME TIRUMALAKUPPAM. PUTTUR. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 51.S.P.VENKATESULU. YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD S/O.SAMPATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT UARD 1720, R/0.D NO. 16-23. O S/O.K.S.PREM KUMAR, .AGED ABOUT 29 1636, R/O.D.NO.4-1037/1, PENSIONERS COLONY, K/\JOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 52.V.KIRAN BABU,, S/O.VENKATASVYAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1651/A, R/O.D.NO.4-2142, OTICHERUVU, GREANSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 53.K.CHINNABBA,, S/O.K,GANGA!AH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1638, R/O.D.NO.4-2146, VOTICHERVU, GREANSPET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 54.M.HEMANTH GGIRl,, S/0.LATE MAN!, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1586. R/O.D.NO 14-547 MGR STREET, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 55.C.GOV\THAM KUMAR,, S/O.C CHINNASVA/AMY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1440. R/ O.DALAVAIPAL YADAMARI MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT ! ! Li . 56.S.RAJA,, S/O.N.SEKHAR. AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS. OCC. HOME GUARD 1652. R/O D NO 25-93, VALLIYAPPANAGAR, GREANSPET, CHITTOOR DiSTRiC 57.K.NARENDRA,, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. OCC HOME GUARD 1658, KODIKOTTA, MADAVARAM vadAMAR! MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 58.N.VINOD KUMAR,, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS. OCC. HOME GUARD 1224, ROOSIPALLI. THONAPALI. PUTHALAP.ATTU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 59.B.BARATH,, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS. OCC. HOME GUARD 1439, REDDIVARI STREET, NAGAR! MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRCIT. 60,P.GNANA SEKHAR,, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1479, MARIKAYANAPALLL PENMUR MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 61.ARUN KUMAR,, SI O.K.KOMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1700/A R/O.D.NO.9-20/A, MARIYANUPALLi, PENUMUR MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 62.P.NAVEEN KUMAR,, S/O.P.PONDRAIAH. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1411. R/ O.D . NO.3-113 , PUTHALAPATTU, EACHERUVU MANDAL. CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 63.V.ADI SANKHAR,. S/O.K.VENK.ATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD 1219. R/O.D.NO.4-58. AMBEDhSAR NAGAR. PALAMERU. CHITTOOR DiSTRiCT. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, CCC. HOME GUARD 1372, R/O.D.NO.1-35/1. MUKAPAKSHi, CHITTOOR DiSTRICT. 64. D. KUMAR ...PETITtONER{S) AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. HOME DEPARTMENT A.P.SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATi, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DiSTRiCT 3. THE COMMANDANT HOME GUARDS, KURNOOL RANGE. KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of India praying that m the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased tomay be pleased to issue a Writ, or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the 4th respondent in C.NO.B7/60/HGS/2022 dt issuing the removal order vide .12.2022 by which petitioner was removed from the rolls of home guard organization on the ground of his initial appointment order are not original without conducting any proper enquiny as highly illegal, arbitrary exercise of powers, violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set-aside the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service and also include his name in the rolls of home guards original list v^ith all consequential benefits and to pass such nn lA NO: 1 OF 2022 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 may be pleased to suspend the removal order in C.No B7/60/HGS/2022 dt.09.12.2022 issued by the 4th pending disposal of the writ petition and pass such lA NO: 1 OF 2023 respondent 10 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 grant leave to the petitioners to file reply affidavit W.PNo.42503 of 2 m no 2 and pass U/1 Counsel for the Petitioner{S): 1.AVANIJA INUGANTI Counsel for the Respondent{S); 1.GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER;- Heard Ms. Avanija Inuganti, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Governmient Pleader for Services 2, Since the issue involved in both cases is one and the same. :t is appropriate to dispose of these cases by way of a common order. 2 The writ petition is filed ch enging the proceedings of the 4'''^ respondent removing the petitioners from service. It is contended that an the petitioners in both the writ petitions were appointed on 12.07.2008 and 02.02.2009 respectively as Home Guards, were assigned to Chittoor unit. From the date of appointment to the date of removal from service, the petitioners were posted as Home Guards at different bus depots o^ APSRTC, and at the Office of Deputy Transport Commissioner etc,. The petitioners were removed from service vide the Impugned proceedincs. The petitioners contended that the ground on which the petitioners were removed from service, was that the petitioners have submitted forged 11 orders of appointment and they arrived at such conclusions without conducting any enquiry and without any opportunity to the petitioners before they were remioved from service. The respondents filed counter affidavit stating that the appointment orders of all the Mom.e Guards in Chittoor District were verified and in the case of 8S Home Guards, the same were found to be 3. fake and forged. It is further stated that, a meeting was held with all the Home Guards at old DPO, Chittoor and Police Conference Hall, Chittoor between 04.0/.2022 to 07.0/.2022 and a detailed enquiry was made by the Commandant, Home Guards, Kurnoci and DSP, Home Guards, Tirupati Region with regard to the genuineness of the orders of appointment and reasonable opportunity vjas given to all of them for submission of their o.nginal appoint.ment orders Among them, 90 Home Guards have failed to produce their copies of the orders of appointment, however, produced xerox copies of the orders of appointment and on verification with the D.O, Book maintained in the office of the Home Guards, the saime Vi/ere found to be fake and orders of removal were issued to all the said 89 Home Guards. It is further stated that the petitioner Nos. 2, 5, 6, 8, 16, 22, 26. 29, 31, 40. 43. 47, 49, 59 and 60 in the writ petition were appointed on the basis of the said fake orders and they did not even cross the age of 18 years. It is further stated that on the complaint made by one B.Muraiidhar, RIAR, Home Guards, Chittoor. a case in Cr.No.185./2022 for offences under Sections 420, 419. 409. 468, 12 471 r/w 120 (b) IPC was registered against one R.Manigandan, HG 146, and one T.Yuvaraju, HG 1709 and others at Chittoor I town UPS on 16.07.2022 It is further stated that some of the petitioners were at the time of their appointment. Against the petitioners, also a minors police complaint v^as filed before I town UPS, Chittoor. The learned counsel for the petitioner Ms. Avanija Inuganti appearing for the petitioners would submit that the order impugned in the writ petition was passed without granting any opportunity to show The learned counsel further referring to the provisions of Rule 3 of the Madras Home Guards Rules,1949 4 cause. contends that no person shall be eligible forr employment as Home Guard unless he is aged less than 20 years and not more than 45 years of age on the date of application for enrolment 5 The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on the following decisions: (i) the decision of this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and Others V/s. P.Prasad Rao and Another^, wherein it is observed as under: Section 4(3) of the Act empowers the prescribed authority to suspend, dismiss, remove any HG subject to such conditions as may be prescribed Rule 7(4) of the Rules contemplates a show-cause notice only with regard to the penalty proposed to be imposed. No such shovn cause notice or prior opportunity 's contemplated under ■16 ■ 2011 see Online AP 900 lo the Act or the Rules before a HG is removed. Bui. having gard to ihe language useo in Rule 7(4) of the Rules that the show-cause I cr notice should be to afford a reasonable opportunity before passing an order of penalty and having regard to the ratio in Dr. Rash Lai Yadav's case (supra), we are inclined to read Rule 7(4) of the Rules show-cause mandating as notice a containing charges/irnputations or instances of misconduct so as to aive a the reasonable opportunity to the delinquent HG to mreet the charges and effectively plead defence for exoneration. A show-cause notice merely indicating the penalty to be imposed would not answer the test of fairness in administrative action. .Any notice calling upon to submit explanation only against penalty i,mposed would certainlv not comply will ; the principles of natural justice. An order of authority exercising jucicial or quasi-judicial functions passed in vioiation of principles of natural justice is procedurally ultra vires and suffers ifom a ’ictional error (Ravi S. Naik v. Sanjay Bandekar. 1994 AIR 1994 SC 1558). ISC Sun 2, see 6-R I herefore, in all the cases a snow-cause notice Is issued as a post-decisional OOP - anc without a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent HG e-decisional stage would certainly violate the principles of n mat view of tne matter in the other group of writ we do no; find any error in the orders of learned Tribunal. ” p > P ' ; <; f ual iushcc na petiiio'is (!l) the dec'Sion of the Hon^ble Apex Court in the case of Davinder Stngh and Others l^s. State of Punjab and Others, wherein observed as under: It IS (28) The order terminating the services of the appellants specifically cues inaiscipiine at the Amintsar Railway Station as the cause for the termination / herefore. it is not a case where the appointing authority IS discharging the services of the appellants on the ground that their services are no longer required but it is a case where their services are sought to be dispensed with on ihe ground of indiscipline, which ■would come within the meaning of the expression 'Misconduct'. In such a situation the respondents cannot terminate the services of the appellants without following the procedure prescribed under Rule 14 27 of the Rules, the said rules, specifically deals with Discipline. It reads as under > "Dismissed - (1) Any officer may for misconduct or for absence v/ithout sufficient cause, be dismissed from sennce. Provided that an rder of dismissal shall not be O: passed unless reason of dismissal are recorded in v/ritinq and the member concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken aoainsi him." (29) The language eimoloyed in the Rule is clear and unambiguous. The Rule envisages that any officer may be dismissed from service either for misconduct or for unauthorized absence. Proviso appended to the Rules speaks of giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer or the me.mber appointed under the Act and the Rules It IS an admitted posiiion that no such opponunity of hearing or notice was given to me appella'its m the present case as is required uncer Rule 27 In this view of the matter the respondents cannot be permitted to contend that the appellants being ‘volunteers', their services could be terminated without complying with the procedure prescribed in tne Statutony Rules which speaks of providing an opportunity of hearing to the person who would be affected by the proposed action (30) (31)In our considered view, even in matters of discharge, the authority concerned cannot act arbitrarily while discharging an employee. However, in the instant case the appellants are being discharged from service for indiscipline Therefore, as provided in proviso to rule 27 of the rules, the appellants should have been given a .reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against them Admittedly, no such opportunity was given tc them Therefore we are of the view that the action of the respofidents is contraiy to then own statutory rules and in violation of principles of natural lustice 15 (ill) the decision of the Hon'ble Aoex C uri in the case of Harbhajan Singh and Others \/s. Nawanshahar Central COOP. Bank LTD. n and Others^. "7.1 he facts and circumstances show that followed by the Bank no proper procedure vjas in removing the appellants from ser\'ice. The High Court in contempt jurisdiction should not have passed an order of removal of the appellants from service without there being a proper enquiry. The Bank should have conducted a proper enquiry to find out the irregularities, if any, committed in the process of selection of candidates and based on that report alone the candidates who were already appointed could have been removed from service. The candidates should have been given reasonable opportunity of oeing heard before their removal from service The appellants removal from service is without following proper procedure and of natural justice." /■ amounted to violation of the orinciples 6 The learned Government Pleader for Services-i relies on the following decisions; (i) the decision of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in the case of the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd., Regional Office Noida and another Vs. Cyan Chand. (ii) the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Rajendra D.Harmalkar\ wherein the Apex Court after referring to the various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court on the question of judicial review and interference of the Courts in disciplinary proceedings observed that: - (2004) 10 see 606 " (2022) 17 sec 361 J. o “23.lt was a case on behalf of the petitioner original writ petitioner before the High Court that he pleaded guilty and admitted that he had submitted a forged and fake certificate on the assurance that lesser punishment will be imposed. However, except the bald statement, there is no further evidence on the same. Nothing has been mentioned on record as to who gave him such an assurance. 24.— 25.— 26.— 27. Even from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court It does not appear that any specific reasoning was given by the High Court on how the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority could be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. As per the settled position of law, unless and until it is found that the punishment i,mposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inguiry the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which as such is a prerogative of the disciplinary authority as observed hereinabove ’’ The learned Government Pleader for Services-I would argue that the petitioners were given the opportunity and were asked to produce 7 documents evidencing their appointment. However, they have either failed to submit them, or those submitted were found to be fake. 8. Considered the rival submissions 9. From the impugned order, it appears that the basis for removal of the petitioners is the enquiry conducted against the petitioners with regard to the genuineness of the appointment order(s), which according to the respondents, was forged. As per the counter affidavit, it 1 / reflects that before passing order of remcva an enquin/ en masse was conducted and the documents were verified. I he contention of the respondents that the said act of en masse enquiry would comply with the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable. Since the respondents' conclusion that the orders of appointment are fake and bogus is a unilateral one, and the petitioners v^/ere never allowed to disprove the allegation. The decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Vs. Rajendra D.Harmalkar, relied upon by the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, is distinguishable on facts. In the said case, a departmental enquiry was conducted before the writ petitioner in the case was removed from ser\/ice for submitting a forged SSLC certificate at the time of recruitment. Whereas, in the instant case the respondents have caused an unilateral enquiry and verified their records thus came to a conclusion that the petitioners have secured job by submitting forged certificate passing such an order, the petitioner was not issued with any notice Before Therefore, the impugned order is set aside, the matter is remanded to the appointing authority the 4'^ respondent, for conducting enquiry afresh by providing opportunity to the petitioners. If the authority comes to a finding that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of a fake and forged documents, appropriate orders shall be passed by the appointing authority after issuing 10. notice to the oetitioners. If the appointing authority finds it, othe.nA/ise. i.e arrives at finding that the 18 orders oi appointment are genuine and are not forged, as alleged tne petitioners shall be taken into service v.'ith alt consequential benefits including back wages, however the said back wages shall be computed @ 50% of the v;ages. 11 With the above observations, the writ petitions are disposed of here shall be no order as to costs. a sequel, interlocutory applications, pending if any, shall As Stand closed Sd/- K TATA RAO DEPUTY REG) TRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, A.P.Secretariat, Velagapudi District. 2. The Additional Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 3. The Commandant, Home Guards, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 4. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District. 5. One CC to M/s. Avanija inuganti, Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP for Services 7. Two CD Copies Amaravati, Guntur I, High Court of Andhra Pradesh [OUT] RAM HIGH COURT DATED:04/08/2025 COMMON ORDER WP.Nos. 41778 & 42503 of 2022 DISPOSING BOTH THE WP’s WITHOUT COSTS