THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.589 of 2005 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the orders passed by the first respondent in C.No.2/RI-HGO-KMM/2004, D.O.No.1356/2004 dated 9.11.2004 based on the resolution passed by the Committee dated 10.9.2004 for terminating the services of the petitioner as Home Guard without following the procedure contemplated under A.P. Home Guards Act, 1948 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India and also the provisions of Home Guards Act, 1948 and the Rules made thereunder and consequently declare that the petitioner is entitled to continue in service as Home Guard without there being any break with all consequential benefits. It appears, petitioner was initially appointed as Home Guard with effect from 30.5.1984 vide proceedings of the first respondent. While that being so, the impugned order dated 9.11.2004 was passed terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground that he was involved in a criminal case in Crime No.151 of 2004, which was registered under Sections 509, 448, 294(b), 506 read with Section 34 of IPC on the file of P.S. Bhadrachalam. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, neither any notice was issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry whatsoever was conducted by the respondents before passing the impugned order. He further contends that the services conditions of Home Guard are governed by A.P. Home Guards Act, 1948 and Rule 7 thereof reads as under: “Discipline : (1) The Commandant shall comply with all orders in regard to the training of Home Guards and their use in aid of the Police issued by the Commissioner of Police or the District Superintendent of Police concerned, as the case may be. (2) A Home Guard shall perform such duties and functions as may be assigned to him and shall obey every order of his superior officers. (3) For the purposes of administration and discipline, the Home Guards, shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule, (5) be under the control of their Commandant and, in his absence, of the Adjutant or the other staff officers, if any, appointed to assist the Commandant. Provided that, if a contingent of Home Guards is acting in conjunction with a police force, they shall be subject to the control of the Senior Police Officer present who shall be not below the rank of Inspector. (4) The Commandant may, for good and sufficient reasons, imposed on any Home Guard any of the following penalties: (a) reprimand; (b) extra duty; (c) withholding of payment of duty allowance. (d) suspension; (e) reduction of rank (f) removal; and (g) Dismissal No appeal shall lie against any of these punishments. In all cases of disciplinary action, a reasonable opportunity shall ordinarily be given to the delinquent Home Guard to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him, but in exceptional cases, when this course is not possible, it may be waived for special reasons to be recorded in writing. (5) The Commissioner of Police in the Presidency-town and the District Superintendent of Police concerned elsewhere may, for good and sufficient reasons, directing the suspension, removal or dismissal of a Home Guard from his office. (6) The superintendence of the Home Guards shall be vested in the Inspector General of Police and shall be exercised by him through the Commissioner of Police in the Presidency-town and through the Special Officer for the Special Armed Police Units and the District Superintendent of Police concerned elsewhere.” The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that the services of the petitioner were terminated only on the ground that he was involved in a petty quarrel case between himself and his neighbour, which arose outside the employment and more over, the petitioner was acquitted of the said case. Having heard both sides and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record, I am of the opinion that for such a misconduct, the termination of petitioner is not warranted. Respondents could not have dispensed with the services of petitioner on the ground that he was involved in a petty case, which however arose outside the employment. Even otherwise, as per Rule 7 of Home Guard Rules, a reasonable opportunity shall ordinarily be given to the delinquent Home Guard to show cause against the penalty proposed to be imposed on him. In this case, no such opportunity was given to him before terminating his services nor it can be said that it is a special case and no such notice is required. Further, from the order passed in C.C.No.5 of 2006 dated 30.12.2006 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Bhadrachalam, it can be seen that the petitioner was acquitted of the said case under Section 255(1) of Cr.P.C. Firstly, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner was asked to explain his conduct and secondly, from the facts, it appears that for a case that arose outside the employment and unless and until, such a crime is proved, the respondents could not have been taken a drastic action of terminating the services of the petitioner. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that the impugned order passed by the respondents is in gross violation of principles of natural justice, apart from being contrary to Home Guard Rules, therefore the same is liable to be set aside. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Further, the respondents are directed to continue the petitioner in service and regularize his services on par with others. It is needless to mention that the petitioner is entitled for all the benefits that arise in view of allowing of the present writ petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 9.4.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.589 of 2005 9.4.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.589 of 2005 Date: 9th April, 2010 Between: Mohd. Zahoor .. Petitioner And The Superintendent of Police, Khammam district & others. .. Respondents