THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.12629 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner was appointed as a Home Guard on 31.10.2003 by the Superintendent of Police, Khammam and was subjected to 21 days of training. Through an order, dated 20.02.2010, respondent No.2 directed removal of the name of the petitioner from the rolls, on the allegation that he submitted duty bill card for the month of December 2009 with fake signatures. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the said order. He contends that he did not resort to any acts of irregularity and that respondent No.2 did not issue any notice before passing the impugned order. Respondent No.2 filed a counter-affidavit. He states that the petitioner was allotted duties in Khammam II Town Police Station in December, 2009 and without attending to the duties, he submitted a fake duty card claiming remuneration. Heard Sri P.B.Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Home. The only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the order, dated 20.02.2010, passed against the petitioner by respondent No.2 is valid. The appointment of the petitioner is not to any regular post and that respondent No.2 is conferred with the power to dispense with the service of the petitioner. Apart from the requirement under the principles of natural justice, the rules framed under the A.P. Home Guards Act mandate that before any punitive action is taken against the Home Guards, opportunity must be given to them. Such an opportunity cannot be equated to the regular disciplinary enquiry. At the same time, the disciplinary authority must inform the Home Guard concerned as to the nature of allegations, take the explanation if any into account and pass appropriate orders. Neither in the impugned order nor in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was put on notice about the allegation. On the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in so far as it pertains to the petitioner is set aside. He shall be taken into duties, within a period of four weeks from today. In case respondent No.2 intends to proceed against the petitioner on the basis of the allegation as to submission of any fake card, it shall be open to him to do so by issuing a formal notice after the petitioner is taken on duty. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.08.2011 kdl