1 APHC010531362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] THURSDAY,THE NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 27469/2025 Between: 1. YARA NAGA VASU BABU, S/O. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, AGED 36 YEARS, OCC. HOME GUARD (H.G.1157), R/O. CHINAMUTTEVI VILLAGE, MOVVA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESENTED BY ITS. PRINCIPLE SECRETARY, (HOME DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, ANTI-CORRUPTION BUREAU, ANDHRA PRADESH, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, VIJAYAWADA CITY, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. 5. THE ADDITIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, 2 (TRAINING), ACB HEAD QUARTERS, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. V SAI KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. S.SYAM SUNDER RAO SC cum Spl P.P. For ACB 2. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.27469 of 2025 ORDER: In the present writ petition, the order dated 29.09.2025 issued vide Procs.C.No.41/ACB-B1/2025, wherein the Petitioner was removed from service by the Respondent No.2 is called in question. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as Home Guard in the year 2016. While so, a show cause notice was issued on 06.09.2025 by the Respondent No.2 stating that the Petitioner had instigated and provoked farmers of China Muthevi and surrounding villages to obstruct the lorry with urea load. It is further stated that this reportedly had caused obstruction to normal traffic flow and resulted in breach of peace and hence, the Petitioner was called upon to explain the misconduct. Though the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.09.2025, the impugned order was passed on the ground that the explanation submitted by the Petitioner was unsatisfactory. 3. Learned Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2 would submit that the Petitioner is only a Home Guard and no CCA 4 Rules are applicable to the Petitioner and therefore, the procedure adopted for passing the impugned order cannot be faulted. 4. Heard the respective counsel. 5. The order of removal is on an allegation that the Petitioner had instigated and provoked farmers of China Muthevi and surrounding villages. In the show cause notice, no documents or statements of any individuals relied upon by the respondent authority to come to the conclusion were provided. Apart from that, there are hardly any reasons in the impugned order itself. As removal of the Petitioner is stigmatic having bearing of his future employment, the Respondents ought to have conducted an enquiry in compliance with the natural justice and procedural fairness so as to enable the Petitioner to rebut the allegations. In the absence of such procedure, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 6. Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order dated 29.09.2025. The Respondents are at liberty to conduct an enquiry in compliance with the natural justice 5 and procedural fairness. The Petitioner shall be reinstated into service. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY Date: 09.10.2025 Ivd THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY 6 WRIT PETITION No.27469 of 2025 Dated: 09.10.2025 Ivd