APHC010501572021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION TRANSFERED FROM APAT NO: 2034/2021 Between: 1. G MOHAN VINAYAKA, S/O. G.GOVINDARAJULU, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, HOME GUARD NO. 1577, (UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL), 0/0. CHITTOOR HOME GUARDS UNIT (ATTACHED TO R.T.A., CHITTOOR), R/O. H.NO. 28-219, RAM NAGAR COLONY, RAJA REDDY STREET, CHITTOOR, ANDHRA PRADESH. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, , CHITTOOR, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 2. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL/INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, HOME GUARDS, ANDHRA PRADESH, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE COMMANDANT, , HOME GUARDS ORGANIZATION, KURNOOL. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, , A.P., MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 5. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, , REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, TULLUR MANDAI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): 2 to call for the records relating to the impugned D.O.No. 04/2018, No. B7/HGs/1721/13/2016, dated 31-1-2018 issued by the 1st respondent and quash or set-aside the same as being illegal, arbitrary and unjust and against the law on the subject and consequently declare that the applicant is entitled for re-enrollment/ reinstatement to duty as Home Guard with all consequential benefits IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy in W.P (AT).No. 2034 of 2021 dated 13.12.2024 and to pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 set aside the order dated 13.12.2024 passed in W.P.(AT).No. 2034 of 2021 and restore the same in the interest of Justice and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 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 for filing of the Counter Affidavit in W.P(AT).No.2034 of 2021 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K ASAD AHAMED Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following: :: ORDER :: Heard Sri M.S.P. Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri K. Asad Ahamed, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Manidar Pingali, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, for the respondents. 3 2. Impugning the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide D.O.No.04/2018, No.B7/HGs/1721/13/2016, dated 31.01.2018, removing the petitioner from the Home Guard Organisation, the above writ petition was filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the petitioner was enrolled as a Home Guard and deputed to the Roads Transport Authority, Chittoor District, on a redeployment basis vide Proc.D.O.No.07/12, Rc.No.B7/HGs/1295/05/2012 dated 19.06.2012. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging duties. 4. While so, a surprise check was conducted by the ACB Tirupathi Range at RTO Check Post, Palamaner, Chittoor District, on 08.09.2015 and found that an unaccounted amount of Rs.3,310/-. Based on the report submitted by the officials of ACB, the 1st respondent issued a show-cause notice to the applicant vide C.No.B7/HGs/1721/13/2016 dated 28.04.2016. The petitioner submitted an explanation on 02.05.2016, requesting to drop further action. Later, the applicant was deputed to APSRTC, Tirupathi Depot, vide proceedings dated 28.06.2016 and 11.07.2016. 5. Be that as it may, the 1st respondent, by the proceedings impugned, removed the petitioner from the Home Guard Organisation. Learned counsel would contend that the 1st respondent has no jurisdiction/authority to remove the petitioner from the Home Guard Organisation. He would also contend that no reasons were assigned. 4 6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I, would fairly submit that the 1st respondent is not the competent authority to pass the order, in view of the judgment of the Composite High Court in State of Andhra Pradesh and other vs. P.Prasad Rao and another1 and also the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23101 of 2021 and batch, dated 15.07.2025. Learned counsel would submit that, insofar as readmission is concerned, the petitioner must undergo a fitness test. 7. The point for consideration is: Whether the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent vide D.O.No.04/2018, No.B7/HGs/1721/13/2016 dated 31.01.2018, are legally sustainable? 8. The competency/jurisdiction of the Superintendent of Police, Chittoor District, 1st respondent herein, in removing the petitioner from the Home Guard Organisation is no longer res integra. 9. In fact, the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.23101 of 2021 and batch considered an identical issue. Division Bench in para-3 observed as follows: “…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 Superintendent of Police has no jurisdiction to suspend/dismiss or remove any Home Guard from the office…” 1 2012 (1) ALD 76s 5 10. Thus, in view of the law laid down in the above decision, the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent removing the petitioner from the Home Guard Organisation are liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction/authority. Since this court concluded that the Superintendent of Police had no jurisdiction, the other contention that the order lacks reasons is not discussed in detail. Accordingly, the proceedings are hereby set aside. 11. Insofar as re-engagement of the petitioner as a Home Guard is concerned, it is noted that the petitioner was removed from service by the proceedings dated 31.01.2018, and nearly six years have gone by. Keeping the nature of duties discharged by the Home Guard, fitness is essential. Maintaining physical fitness requires regular effort and diligence. The plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner may be exempted from physical fitness, this Court is not persuaded by the said submission. The petitioner must prove the fitness before reinduction into duties. The learned Commandant, Home Guard Organisation, Kurnool-3rd respondent herein shall conduct the physical fitness test to the petitioner and based on such a fitness reinduct the petitioner as Home Guard. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Date: 06.02.2026 SNI 6 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI WRIT PETITION (AT) NO: 2034 OF 2021 Date: 06.02.2026 SNI