THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.22825 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioners were employed as Home Guards, in different years, in the Khammam District. Through order, dated 17.10.2001, the Superintendent of Police, Khammam, the 2nd respondent, removed them from the rolls, on the ground that they were involved in Crime No.89 of 2001, under Section 379 read with Section 411 I.P.C. on the file of Karepalli P.S. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the said orders. The petitioners state that they have been tried for the said offence in C.C.No.720 of 2000 by the Court of Judicial First Class Magistrate, Yellandu, and vide judgment, dated 12.11.2003, the trial Court acquitted them. Petitioners made several representations to the respondents, to take them into service. Complaining that the action of the 2nd respondent in removing them from the rolls is illegal, they have filed this writ petition. On behalf of the respondents, a counter-affidavit is filed. It is stated that the 2nd respondent passed the orders. Objection is raised, on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition. Heard Sri P.V.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Home. The appointment of the petitioners as Home Guards is governed by the provisions of the A.P. Home Guards Act, 1948 and the Home Guards Service Rules, 1949 (for short ‘the Rules’). The Commandant, Home Guards, is conferred with the power to impose punishments of different kinds, under Rule 7(4) of the Rules. Though there is no provision, which insists that enquiry must be conducted before the Home Guards removed from the rolls, it is required under the principles of natural justice that, at least, a show cause must be issued. The petitioners were removed straight away without issuing any show cause notice. Further, the crime was not even taken up by the trial Court as C.C., by the time the order of removal was passed. At any rate, there would have been some justification for the 2nd respondent to remove the petitioners, had they been convicted by the Court of law. C.C.No.720 of 2001, in which the petitioners were tried, ended in acquittal. At least, after the criminal Court acquitted the petitioners, steps ought to have been taken to re-induct them into service. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed and the 2nd respondent is directed to take the petitioners into service forthwith. In case the 2nd respondent intends to initiate any disciplinary proceedings, against the petitioners, it shall be open to him, to do so in accordance with law, after reinstating them into service. There shall be no order as costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.27.12.2010. Note: Furnish C.C. in one week. (B/o) GJ