IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8209 of 2009 Between: A.Punnmchand S/o.Ramji Naik R/o.Kothaguda Checkpost, Utnoor, Adilabad District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, A.P., Hyderabad. 2 The Superintendent of Police, Adilabad. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.RAMA SUBBA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: --- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This writ petition is filed for a writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for reappointment as Home Guard in Adilabad District in view of judgment dated 20-11-2007 in S.C.No.440 of 2006 on the file of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Adilabad as illegal and arbitrary. While working as Home Guard, the petitioner indulged in a heinous crime of allegedly raping one person by name Yemulwar Laxmi, along with his accomplice, who was also a Home Guard. A criminal case was registered and the petitioner along with his accomplice was subjected to criminal trial. However, the petitioner evidently won over all the witnesses including the victim, which forced the criminal Court to acquit the petitioner. The righteous indignation of the criminal Court in acquitting the petitioner is reflected in para 18 of the judgment in S.C. No.440 of 2006, which is reproduced below- “It appears that the victim was won over by the defence. The other material witnesses also won over by the defence. Though the prosecution got recorded the statement of the victim under Section 164 Cr.P.C, but failed to take steps in that regard by putting the same to the victim in the cross-examination. This attitude of the prosecution clearly shows that the prosecution has never adduced any interest in prosecuting this case. Thus the allegation that the accused are falsely implicated cannot be considered but due to the tendency of making the witnesses hostile, the case against the accused has not been established. Hence, the accused are entitled to benefit of doubt for the offence alleged against them.” The grievance of the petitioner is that though he is acquitted of the criminal charge, the respondents are not considering his request for reinstatement. The post of a Home Guard calls for an absolute discipline and unimpeachable personal integrity. The petitioner is accused of a highly immoral act of committing rape. The criminal Court, as noted above, expressed its helplessness while acquitting the petitioner, as the victim and her family members have not supported the case of the prosecution. This, however, does not mean that the petitioner is given a clean chit on his conduct and character. The criminal Court declined to accept the defence plea of false implication of the petitioner. The serious accusation, which is a slur on the face of the petitioner, disentitles him to re-enter the disciplined Force. Therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court to give a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement. For the above mentioned reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.10733 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 21st April, 2009 vrn