IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.28318 of 1997 Date: 29th January, 2010 Between: N.G.Mohan Kumar .. Petitioner And The Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams, Tirupati, Chittoor district & others. .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.28318 of 1997 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to continue the petitioner in service by declaring the order passed by the third respondent in D.O.No.25/97, B7/8073/65/97 dated 15.9.1997 as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction. It appears, petitioner was selected as Home Guard and appointed as such and deputed to the service of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD) by order dated 8.11.1990. Thus, the petitioner was discharging the duties of a Home Guard with TTD without any complaint whatsoever. While that being so, the second respondent passed order dated 16.8.1997 removing the petitioner from the service of TTD on the ground that he was involved in fraudulent collection of amounts on 9.8.1997 at 10.56 p.m., which was detected by the Vigilance and Security Officer, TTD. Except this averment, no notice of any kind was issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry was conducted for the purpose of removing him from the service of TTD. The learned counsel for petitioner also states that even the Parent Department of the petitioner did not conduct any enquiry in this regard. This Court, while admitting the writ petition on 29.10.1997, granted interim suspension of the impugned order and the petitioner is being continued for 13 long years as Home Guard. Further, his services were also regularized vide proceedings of the TTD in Roc.No.B7/50013/1997 dated 3.9.2009 and he was also put on regular timescale. No counter is filed by the respondents till date. There is no necessity of going into all the details. The impugned order itself would indicate that no enquiry was conducted by the respondents before terminating the petitioner from service. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and on this ground alone, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. Further, for such misconduct alleged, for which no charge was framed, it may not be desirable to conduct enquiry against the petitioner at this length of time. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 29.1.2010 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.28318 of 1997 29.1.2010