HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY WRIT PETITION No. 23637 OF 2010 Thursday, the Seventh Day of October, Two Thousand and Ten Between The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By its Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and others Petitioners AND U.Srinivas Rao and another Respondents JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Assailing the order dated 10.03.2010 allowing O.A. No.1381 of 2010 filed by the first respondent herein and setting aside the order dated 2.3.2010 passed by the first petitioner herein, removing the petitioner from the rolls of the Home Guards Organisation, the present writ petition is filed by the official respondents in the O.A. The first respondent along with others, while working as Home Guard in Visakhapatnam City, are said to have raided a gambling team on 10.1.2010 at about 8.30 p.m. on the backside of Durga Temple at Mulagada village, without information to the superior officers and took away Rs.35,900/- from the gamblers and set them free. On complaint, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, enquired into the allegations and a show cause notice dated 16.2.2010 came to be issued calling for his explanation, as to why he should not be removed from the rolls of the Home Guards Organisation. The first respondent submitted explanation denying his raiding the gambling party or seizing of the cash from them. The first petitioner on considering the explanation submitted by the respondent, passed orders dated 2.3.2010 removing him from the rolls of the Home Guards Organisation of Visakhapatnam City. It is this order, which was assailed by the respondent before the A.P. Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and the Tribunal, while allowing the O.A. and setting aside the order impugned therein, has reserved the liberty to the petitioners herein to take appropriate action against the respondent and others as per Rules. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the official respondents in the O.A. Heard learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing for the petitioners herein and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Learned Government Pleader contended that though there are no Rules prescribed for the Home Guards to be followed yet on the complaint lodged against the petitioner and others that they have seized Rs.35,900/-, the matter was enquired into by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and after securing their explanation, being unsatisfactory, first petitioner herein has rightly removed the respondent and others from the rolls of the Home Guards. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the first respondent that the respondent was neither given an opportunity of examining and cross- examining the witnesses nor any material was served on him or was permitted to put forth any material in his defence, which is violative of principles of natural justice and, therefore, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the O.A. and no interference is called for. We have gone through the order impugned and the order passed by the first petitioner removing the respondent from the rolls of the Home Guards Organisation. Even if the contention advanced by the learned Government Pleader that no Rules have been prescribed for the Home Guards, is accepted, it is fundamental that the principles of natural justice ought to have been followed and, as such, the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the first respondent that the respondent is entitled to examine and cross-examine the witnesses deserves acceptance. The first respondent is also entitled to examine the complainant, who is said to have lodged the complaint before the Deputy Commissioner of Police. Not affording an opportunity to cross-examine him, has resulted in infringement of principles of natural justice. In that premise, the Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by the first respondent. Under the above circumstances, the petitioners are directed to reinstate the first respondent into service and such reinstatement shall, however, subject to the result of the enquiry that may be conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry so contemplated shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari ____________________ Justice G.V. Seethapathy October 07, 2010 MAS.