■APHC010409352021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AWIARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) P A '>7 33] FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER. TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25053 OF 2021 V Tk Between: Nagireddy Rammohan Reddy, S/o. Chandrasekhar Reddy, Aged about 37 Years, Occ. Ex-Home Guard, R/o. D.No. 98/62, Bugga Agraharam Village, C.K.Dinne Mandai, Y.S.R Kadapa District. ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R.Kadapa District The Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Special Branch, Y.S.R Kadapa District. The Additional Director General of Police. Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh. Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 1. 2. 3. 4. ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in re-enrolling the Petitioner as Home Guard pursuant to the verification report vide C.No. 543/VR-SB/KDP/2021 dated 21.04.2021 submitted by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, violation of principles of Natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to re-enroll the Petitioner as Home Guard. lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the 2'"'^ Respondent to take a decision pursuant to the verification report' vide C.No. 543A/R-SB/KDP/2021 dated 21.04.2021 submitted by the 3rd Respondent. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4;,(3P FOR HOME The Court made the following I APHC010409352021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25053 OF 2021 Between; 1.NAGIREDDY RAMMOHAN REDDY, S/0. CHANDRASEKHAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC. EX-HOME GUARD, R/0. D.NO. 98/62, BUGGA AGRAHARAM VILLAGE, C.K.DINNE MANDAL, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT 3.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, DISTRICT SPECIAL BRANCH, Y.S.R KADAPA DISTRICT. 4.THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HOME GUARDS, ANDHRA PRADESH. MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...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 toto issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 2nd Respondent in re-enrolling the Petitioner as Home Guard pursuant to the verification report vide C.No. 543A/R-SB/KDP/2021 dated 21.04.2021 submitted by the 3rd Respondent as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power, violation of principles of Natural justice, violation of Articles 14 and 21 of The Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to enroll the Petitioner as Home Guard and pass lA NO: 1 OF 2021 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 direct the 2nd Respondent to take a decision pursuant to the verification report’ vide C.No. 543A/R-SB/KDP/2021 dated 21.04.2021 submitted by the 3rd Respondent and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I re- THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25053 OF 2021 The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the 2. petitioner would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is squarely covered by the order, dated 15.07.2025 passed by a division bench of this Court in W.P.No.231.01 of 2021 & batch and requested to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also. The same is not disputed by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the respondents. The Division Bench has observed that: In these cases, the termination of the petitioners / Home Guards is unsustainable and declared unlawful based on the legal principles established by the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to supra and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to strict compliance of principles of natural justice where the action proposed results in adverse civil consequences. 11. c- **************************************************************** *************** **************************************************************** *************** **************************************************************** ************** Despite the respondents having terminated the petitioners without adhering to due process and the Audi Alteram Paitem doctrine, the justification or otherwise for the terminations remain to be examined after issuance appropriate show cause notices. There may be valid grounds for the discontinuation also. However, this 15. Court in the light of the conclusions arrived at W.P.No.35460 of 2013 & batch dated 08.06.2018 as also In the better interest of the petitioners / Home Guards opines that they shall attend and pass the physical fitness test to be conducted by the respondent authorities. Depending on the result in the physical fitness test desen/mg candidates shall be reinstated as Home Guards. Any such reinstatement, however, shall not confer benefit of Home Guards /petitioners like seniority, back Having regard to the facts and supra and the orders in , the any kind to the wages etc. 3. circumstances of the case and in the light of the above judgment of Division Bench, the Writ Petition is disposed of, in terms of the order passed in W.P.No.23101 of 2021 & batch 15.07.2025. No order as to costs. , dated 4. Registry is directed to attach the copy of the order, dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.23101 of 2021 & batch to this As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand order. closed. Sd/- SRI T-SRINIVASA RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary District. Home Department, Amaravathi, Guntur 2. The Superintendent of Police 3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kadapa District. 4. The Additional Director Y.S.R.Kadapa District District Special Branch, Y.S.R General of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh. Mangalagiri. Guntur District 5. One CC to SRI. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Advocate [OPUC] 6. Two CCS to GP FOR HOME High Court of Andhra 7. Two CD Copies. Pradesh [OUT] [Along with the copy of the 15.07.2025]. order in W.P.No.23101 of 2021 dated AL HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 25053 OF 2021 DISPOSING OF THE W.P. WITHOUT COSTS APHC010377812021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3526] TUESDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE WRIT PETITION Nos: 23101 of 2021. 7789. 7804 of 2014. W.A.No.289 of 2020. W.P.No.12074 of 2020. W.A.Nos.336. 390. 437. 455. 465. 475. 493. 515. 559. 594. 604 of 2021, W.P.No.10649 of 2021. W.P.No.5870 of 2023. W.P.Nos.24663. 27203. 28431 of 2021 and W.A.No.503 of 2021 W.P.No.23101 of 2021 Between: I.K.Madhu Babu, , S/o. Late K.Yohanu, Aged About 35 Years, Home Guard 1237 (Under Order Of Removal), Home Guards Organization, Guntur District, R/o. Vipparlapalli Village, Rompicherla Mandal, Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh. ...PETITIONER AND I.The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its PrI. Secretary, Home Department. Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2.The Addl.Director General Of Police, Home Guards, A.P., Vijayawada. 3.The Superintendent Of Police, Guntur District, Guntur. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: I.Mr.B.KRISHNA Counsel for the Respondent(S):, 1.GPFORSERVICES-I 2 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23101 2021&batch CORAM : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO ; 15“^ July, 2025. DATE P.C: Shorn of the facts, the issue broadly involved in the present batch of cases is removal of Home Guards on different grounds. Their grievance is that they were discontinued / removed / terminated from the roles of Home Guards Organization, without conducting any enquiry in gross violation of principles of natural justice, that the orders of removal are without jurisdiction and contrary to the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 etc., and as such they are entitled for reinstatement / continuation of their duties as Home Guards. For the sake of convenience, some of the details of the petitioners / Home Guards, dates of removal from the roles and tabulated below: 2. reasons are S. Case No. Name Date of Removal Reasons No. 1 W.P.No. 10649/2021 L.Madhava Rao 11.04.2015 Absent to duties 2 W.P.No.23101/2021 K.Madhu Babu 12.01.2009 Collection of money from lorry owners 3 W.P.No.28431/2021 M.Muninadham 29.08.2013 Absent to duties 4 W.P.No.27203/2021 R.Venkateshwarallu 17.08.2010 Involvement in criminal cases. 3 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23l0l_202l&batch I 5 W.P.No.12074/2020 Involvement in criminal cases. M.Nagaraju 09.03.2020 6 W.P.No.5870/2023 A.Srinivasa Rao Absent to duties 17.06.2019 7 W.P.No.24663/2021 CH.Sridhar Babu 15.05.2013 Involvement in criminal cases. 8 W.P.No.7804/2014 M.Noor Basha 03.01.2011 Absence to Duties. 9 W.P.No.7789/2014 P.Venkateswara Reddy 29.10.2013 Absence to Duties. 10 11.05.2020 Involvement in criminal W.P.No. 825/2021 W.A No;503/2021 M.Ramakiran cases. 11 11.03.2019 M.Shekar Absence to Duties. W.P.No. 5537/2021 W.A.No. 604/202 1 12 CH.Satya Varma 04.12.2009 Involvement in criminal cases. W.P.No. 2376/2020 W.A.No.437/2021 04.01.2010 Absence to Duties. 13 S.K .Khaja Vali W.P.No.4825/2021 W.A No.455/2021 Involvement in criminal cases. 14 P.V.Prasanth Kumar 06.02.2019 W.P.No. 5136/2121 W.A.No.465/2021 15.05.2015 Absence to Duties. 15 J.Lova Raju W.P.No.2412/2020 W.A.No.493/2021 11.03.2019 Absence to Duties. 16 B. Prasad W.P.No. 23873/2021 W.A.NO. 515/2021 Absence to Duties. 17 P.Mgdhu Babu 07.03.2019 W.P.No. 19255/2019 W.A.No. 289/2020 Misbehavio ur with ladies in intoxicated condition. V.Sadha Shiva 19.06.2012 18 W.P.No.121618/2019 W.A.No.336/2021 D.Anjaneyulu 08.07.2013 Misbehavio ur with ladies 19. W.P.No. 172 of 2020 W.A.No.390 of 2021 .< 4 NJS, J & TRR, ! W.P.No.23 L 01 _2021 &batch 20. P.Nagaraju 11.04.2018 Involved in criminal cases. W.P.No.15611 of 2019 W.A.No.475 of 2021 21. Sk.Mahaboob Subhani 07.03.2019 Involved in criminal cases. W.P.No. 16990 of 2020 W.A.No.559 of 2021 22. Y.Ramanjaneyulu 06.10.2004 Involved in criminal cases. W.P.No.3528 of 2021 W.A.No.594 of 2021 3. So far as the appeals referred to above filed by the State, a learned Single Judge, after considering the matter in detail vide Orders dated 01.04.2021 in W.P.No.16218 of 2019 & batch, directed the reinstatement of the writ petitioners therein as Home Guards, inter alia, observing that “sub-rule (4) of Rule 7 of the Madras Home Guards Rules confers the power on the Commandant, for good and sufficient reasons, to impose on any Home Guard the penalties, namely, reprimand, suspension, reduction of rank, removal and dismissal. But, in all such cases, a reasonable opportunity shall be given to the delinquent Home Guard to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him. If Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act read with Rule 7 (4) of the Madras Home Guards Rules is taken into consideration, it can safely be concluded that the Commandant is competent to take appropriate action against the Home Guards for their misconduct in discharging their duties as Home Guards and the 5 ms, J & TRR, J W.P.No.2310l_202l&batch Superintendent of Police has no jurisdiction to suspend / dismiss or remove any Home Guard from the office” and set aside the dismissal / removal orders of Home Guard/s for non-compliance of the mandatory procedure of issuance of show-cause notice. 4. Several Writ Petitions which were filed subsequently seeking similar relief have been tagged along with the Writ Appeals. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners / Home Guards. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Services-ll appearing on behalf of the State. Considered the submissions made and perused the material on 6. record. It is specifically argued on behalf of the Home Guards that they were not indulged in misconduct as alleged in the proceedings dispensing with their services. Even if there are any commissions and omissions on their part while discharging the duties of Home Guards, 7. any disciplinary action should have been taken, in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the relevant circulars and the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 and by following the principles of natural justice. 6 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23101 _2021 &batch A judgment from the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh i the case of W.P.Nos.35460 of 2013 & batch dated 08.06.2018 was cited in support of their contention. A Division Bench dismissed the said writ petitions filed by the State against the orders of the erstwhile Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal and ordered reinstatement of the Home Guards following the judgment of another Division Bench in State of Andhra Pradesh and other \/s. P. Prasad Rao and another\ wherein after considering the provisions of the Act of 1948 and the Rules of 1949, it was observed thus; 8. in “14. There is no quarrel with the purport of Rule 7(4) of the Rules, which mandates that every order imposing penalty passed by the Commandant shall be preceded by a “reasonable opportunity” and the delinquent HG shall be asked to show-cause why the penalty should not be imposed on him/her. When the rules themselves prescribe the issue of show-cause notice so as to provide reasonable opportunity to delinquent HG, any breach thereof must lead to invalidation of the order of punishment imposed by the Commandant. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the orders passed by the learned Tribunal which are subject-matter of WP Nos. 7656, 10704, 11595, 12585 and 21661 of 2011. These writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 15: Whether issue of a show cause notice calling upon the delinquent HG to submit explanation against the penalty proposed to be imposed would satisfy the principles of natural justice? We afraid, it would not. Though Rule 7 (4) of the Rules speaks of issue of are 2012(1)ALD 76 7 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23101 ^2021 &batcli 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 levelled 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 otherwise, 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 levelled against him, he cannot effectively put forth his 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 Legislature 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.” case even On the other hand, the Government Pleader for Services-!I, inter alia contends that the petitioners may have lost their fitness necessary 9. for performing home guard duties. Consideration bv the Court: It is trite Law and as held by the Apex Court in numerous judgments, the first and foremost principle of natural justice is what is commonly known as Audi Alteram Partem Rule. It says that no one 10. 8 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23101 2021 &batcli Should be condemned unheard. Notice is the first limb of this principle. It must be precise and unambiguous. It should apprise the party determinatively of the case he has to meet. Time given for the purpose should be adequate so as to enable him to make his representation. In the absence of a notice of the kind and such reasonable opportunity, the order passed becomes wholly vitiated. 11. In these cases, the termination of the petitioners / Home Guards is unsustainable and declared unlawful based on the legal principles established by the common High Court of Andhra Pradesh referred to supra and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to strict compliance of principles of natural justice where the action proposed results in adverse civil consequences. However, it is evident from the record that the termination dates back to 5 to 21 years. Given the substantial or significant time elapsed, it is reasonable to expect that the petitioners' physical fitness and stamina might have been diminished. While acknowledging the wrongful termination consider it appropriate that reinstatement should be contingent passing the necessary physical tests, more particularly as the petitioners were not abruptly terminated; rather, on the ground of 12. petitioners' 13. , we upon 9 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23 101 2021 &batcli involvement in criminal cases / irregularities / unauthorized absence etc. 14. At this juncture, it may be appropriate to refer to the submissions made by some of the counsel that as the criminal cases ended in acquittal, those petitioners / Home Guards discontinued after January, 2019 may be exempted from undergoing the physical fitness tests. Such a request though sounds not unreasonable, keeping in view the nature of duties to be discharged by the Home Guards, we feel that fitness is essential, as there is no definitive standard indicating that physical fitness does not decline over time. Maintaining physical fitness requires regular effort and diligence. There is no such scale or measurement that one should not loose or gain physical fitness after particular period. The physical fitness is regular assiduous or sedulous or painstaking. Therefore, the said plea of exemption from physical fitness test merits no acceptance. All the petitioners / Home Guards are required to prove their fitness before reinductio.n into duties. Conclusion:- Despite the respondents-having terminated the petitioners without 15. adhering to due process and the Audi Alteram Partem doctrine, the justification or otherwise for the. terminations remain to be examined after issuance appropriate show cause notices. There may be valid 10 NJS, J & OTR, J W.P.No.23101 2021 &batch grounds for the discontinuation also. However, this Court in the light of the conclusions arrived at supra and the orders in W.P.No.35460 of 2013 & batch dated 08.06.2018 as also in the better interest of the petitioners / Home Guards opines that they shall attend and pass the physical fitness test to be conducted by the respondent authorities. Depending on the result in the physical fitness test, the deserving candidates shall be reinstated as Home Guards. Any such reinstatement, however, shall not confer benefit of any kind to the Home Guards / petitioners like seniority, back wages etc. With the above observations, the Writ Appeals and the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. 16. JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date; 15.07.2025 Siva / BLV