APHC010453902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH ATAMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY,THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER\-r5 TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27390 OF 2021 Between: Vudumu Srinivasulu, S/o Venkata Subbaiah, Aged about 35 Years, Occ Ex-Home Guard, R/o D.No 2/43, Kapu Street, Vempalli Town and Mandal Y.S.R Kadapa District ...Petitioner AND The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep., by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Amaravathi, Guntur District. The Inspector General of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh, Museum Road, Vijayawada. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, At Mangalagiri The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R.Kadapa District The Deputy Superintendent of Police, , Home guards, Kurnool Range 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ...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 Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not sending the report pursuant to the Memorandum vide Rc.No.205/HGs.Estt/2018 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of power. violation of principles of Natural Justice, violation of Articles Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents rPport to the 3rd Respondent for re-instatement of the Petitioner Guard. 14 and 21 of The to submit a as Home 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 direct the Respondents to submit a report to the 3'- Respondent for instatement of the Petitioner as Home Guard. may be pleased to re- Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following % APHC010453902021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] Pi FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27390 OF 2021 Between: 1.VUDUMU SRINIVASULU. S/0 VENKATA SUBBAIAH. AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC EX-HOME GUARD, R/0 D.NO 2/43, KAPU " STREET, VEMPALLI .TOWN AND 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 INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HOME GUARDS, ANDHRA PRADESH, MUSEUM ROAD, VIJAYAWADA. 3.THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, ANDHRA PRADESH, AT MANGALAGIRI 4.THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Y.S.R.KADAPA DISTRICT 5.THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KURNOOL RANGE HOME GUARDS ...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 an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the Mandamus declaring the action of the 4th respondent in not sending the report pursuant to the Memorandum vide I Rc.No.205/HGs.Estt/2018 issued by t he 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 submit a report to the 3rd Respondent for re instatement of 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 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.K SRINIVASA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1.GP FOR SERVICES I THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 27390 OF 2021 ■i The Court made the following order: Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I respondents. appearing for the 2. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the 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.23101 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: 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. **************************^,t^,***^,^,^:^,^,*^,^,^,^,^,*^,^,^,*^,^,*^,^,^,^,^:***************^,^,^,^,^,1,^,^, 15. Despite the respondents having terminated the petitioners without 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 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. ” Having regard to the facts and circumstances of 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, dated 15.07.2025. No order as to costs. 3. case and in the 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 order. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- SRI T-SRINIVASA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Principal Secretary, Home Department District. Amaravathi, Guntur 2. The Inspector General of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh Museum Road, Vijayawada. rraoesn, 3. The Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, At Mangalagiri 4. The Superintendent of Police, Y.S.R.Kadapa District ’ Home guards, Kurnool Range 6. One CC to SRI. K SRINIVASA PRASAD Advocate fOPUCl [OUT]^^^ SERVICES I High Court 8. Two CD Copies. 15'o7202'5] °f 2021& batch i of Andhra Pradesh in AL n HIGH COURT DATED:26/09/2025 ORDER WP NO. 27390 OF 2021 t 04 NOV 2025 \ ^^ATe 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.10€49 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. 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. ...PETITIONER 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, : W.P.No.2310l_2021&batch CORAM : THE HON’BLE SR! 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 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: any enquiry 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 Absent to duties 3 W.P.No.28431/2021 M.Muninadham 29.08.2013 4 W.P.No.27203/2021 R.Venkateshwarallu 17.08.2010 Involvement in criminal cases. 3 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23101_2021 &balcli Involvement in criminal cases. 5 W.P.No. 12074/2020 M.Nagaraju 09.03.2020 W.P.No.5870/2023 Absent to duties 6 A.Sfinivasa Rao 17.06.2019 \/V.P.No.24663/2021 Involvement in criminal 7 CH.Sridhar Babu 15.05.2013 cases. M.Noor Basha 8 W.P.No.7804/2014 03.01.2011 Absence to Duties. Absence to Duties. 9 W.P.No.7789/2014 P.Venkateswara Reddy 29.10.2013 Involvement in criminal 11.05.2020 10 W.P.No. 825/2021 W.A No;503/2021 M.Ramakiran cases. 11.03.2019 Absence to Duties. M.Shekar 11 W.P.No. 5537/2021 W.A.No. 604/202 1 04.12.2009 Involvement in criminal cases. CH.Satya Varma 12 W.P.No. 2376/2020 W.A.No.437/2021 04.01.2010 Absence to Duties. S.K .Khaja Vali 13 W.P.No.4825/2021 W.A No.455/2021 Involvement in criminal cases. 06.02.2019 P.V.Prasanth Kumar 14 W.P.No. 5136/2121 W.A.No.465/2021 15.05.2015 Absence to Duties. J.Lova Raju 15 W.P.No.2412/2020 W.A.No.493/2021 11.03.2019 Absence to Duties. B. Prasad 16 W.P.No. 23873/2021 W.A.No. 515/2021 Absence to Duties. 07.03.2019 P.Madhu Babu 17 W.P.No. 19255/2019 W.A.NO. 289/2020 19.06.2012 Misbehavio ur with ladies in intoxicated condition. V.Sadha Shiva 18 W.P.No.121618/2019 W.A.No.336/2021 Misbehavio ur with ladies 08.07.2013 D.Anjaneyulu 19. W.P.No.172 of 2020 W.A.No.390 of 2021 4 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.2310i_2021&batch 20. P.Nagaraju W.P.No.15611 of 2019 W.A.No.475 of 2021 11.04.2018 Involved in criminal cases. 21. Sk.Mahaboob Subhani W.P.No.16990 of 07.03.2019 Involved in criminal cases. 2020 W.A.No.559 of 2021 W.P.No.3528 of 2021 W.A.No.594 of 2021 22. Y.Ramanjaneyulu 06.10.2004 Involved in criminal cases. 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, reprimand, suspension, reduction of rank, removal and dismissal. But, in namely. 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 NJS, J & TRR. J W.P.No.23101 _2021 &batcli 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. Several Writ Petitions which were filed subsequently seeking 4. similar relief have been tagged along with the Writ Appeals. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioners / Home Guards. Also heard learned Government Pleader for Services-ll 5. 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. Eyen if there are any commissions and omissions on their part while discharging the duties of Home Guards, any disciplinary action should have been taken, in accordance with the procedure contemplated unber the relevant circulars and the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 and by following the principles of natural justice. 7. 6 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23l01_2021&batdi 8. 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 in support of their contention. A Division Bench dismissed the in was cited 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 Vs. P. Prasad Rao and another^ wherein after considering the provisions of the Act of 1948 and 1949, it was observed thus: the Rules of “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 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 12585 and 21661 of 2011. These writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. must lead to 11595, 15: Whether issue of a show cause notice calling upon the delinquent HG to submit explanation against the penalty proposed 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 to are 2012(1) ALD 76 7 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23101 _2021 &batch 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 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 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.” On the other hand, the Government Pleader for Services-ll, 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. ms, J & TRR, J W.P.No. 23101 2021 &batch 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 me^t. 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. 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 supra and the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to strict compliance of principles of natural justice where the 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 upon passing the necessary physical tests, more particularly as the petitioners were not abruptly terminated; rather, on the ground of 11. to action 12. petitioners' 13. we 9 NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23l0l_2021&batch involvement in criminal cases / irregularities / unauthorized absence etc. 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 14. 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 reinduction into duties. Conclusion:- Despite the respondents having terminated the petitioners without 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 15. 10 ‘ NJS, J & TRR, J W.P.No.23l0l_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 as Home Guards. Any such reinstatement, however, shall not confer benefit of any kind to the Home candidates shall be reinstated Guards / petitioners like seniority, back wages etc. With the above observations, the Writ Appeals and the Petitions stand dispbsed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case, shall stand closed. 16. Writ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date; 15.07.2025 Siva / BLV