HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2987 of 2005 DATE:09.06.2010 Between: S. Narayana ... Petitioner and The Addl. Director General of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and another ... Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2987 of 2005 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order, dated 16.01.2005, passed by the 2nd respondent herein in C.No.19-7/RIHG/ADD/2004, dated 16.01.2005, in removing the petitioner from service. 2. Briefly, the case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Home Guard in Bellampally Unit of Adilabad District in the year 1989. While so, after serving more than 15 years, his services were terminated unceremoniously by the impugned order, basing on false allegations, without framing any charge, without conducting a detailed enquiry, and without issuing a show cause notice calling for his explanation. 3. The 2nd respondent filed a counter-affidavit denying the averments of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition and contending that on a complaint made by some unemployed persons that the petitioner collected amounts from them on the pretext of providing jobs and later cheated them, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bellampally, has instructed the Reserve Inspector, Bellampally, to cause proper enquiry and report. Pursuant thereto, the Reserve Inspector, Bellampally, enquired into the allegations made against the petitioner and others and found that the petitioner collected amounts from the unemployed persons promising them to provide jobs. In this regard, the I Town P.S., Bellampally, registered Crime No.58 of 2004 against the petitioner for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 IPC, and after completion of investigation, filed charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Asifabad. Subsequently, the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bellampally, submitted a report vide C.No.699/Add.S.P./B.04, dated 21.08.2004 to him for taking necessary action. Accordingly, proposals were sent to the 1st respondent, and on his instructions, he passed the order impugned in this writ petition. 4. Heard both sides. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that Rule 7 of Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949, which were adopted by the State of A.P., provides that 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. Whereas in this case, no show cause notice is issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 6. There is no reply to the aforesaid contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The record also discloses that no detailed enquiry was conducted, though allegations were made against the petitioner Therefore, I am of the opinion that this is a clear case of gross violation of principles of natural justice. 7. In fact, the learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents placed before this Court a report purported to have been submitted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bellampally, to the 2nd respondent on 21.08.2004 recommending the 2nd respondent to take stern disciplinary action against the petitioner for his misconduct for collecting Rs.6,000/- from the civilians on the pretext of providing Home Guards jobs. Such misconduct cannot be said to be misconduct, which cannot be enquired into and no reasonable opportunity can be extended to the delinquent in the matter. Therefore, the impugned order in so far as the petitioner is concerned is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and as such, the same is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned, is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits, such as, arrears of salary etc., from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, on par with his juniors working as Home Guards. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ C.V. RAMULU, J 9th June, 2010 CBS HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.2987 of 2005 (Allowed) 9th June, 2010 CBS