STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. P PRASAD RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short but significant question that would arise in these eleven writ petitions is as to whether a Home Guard (HG) appointed under the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948 (the Act) whose conditions of service are regulated by the Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949 (the Rules), as applicable in the State of Andhra Pradesh, can be removed from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization (HGO) without giving adequate opportunity to answer the allegations of misconduct and, if the answer is in the negative, what is the extent and measure of adequacy of opportunity that should be provided to a delinquent HG? As the issue is common in all the matters it would be expedient to dispose of all the matters by a common order. Illustratively the factual background in two writ petitions needs to be highlighted in brief for better appreciation of the controversy.

(2.) The writ petition, being W.P. No. 21661 of 2011, is filed by the State, Commissioner of Police, Joint Commissioner of Police and the Commandant, Home Guards, Hyderabad City, against the order in O.A. No. 2583 of 2008, dated 01.10.2010, of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, setting aside the order dated 12.03.2008 issued by the Commandant removing the first respondent (hereafter called, the applicant) from the rolls of the HGO, Hyderabad. The applicant was appointed as HG on 03.02.2000. He was detailed for duty at the Office of the Joint Commissioner of Police, Special Branch, Hyderabad, and was asked to work under the control of the Sub Inspector. When the Sub Inspector was on leave from 26.01.2008 to 03.02.2008, the applicant was required to maintain the attendance register of Class IV employees of the Special Branch. After coming back from his leave, the Sub Inspector found that the applicant allowed the absentee Class IV employees to sign the attendance register as if they worked in the Office. On the said allegation, the Commandant issued order dated 12.03.2008 removing the applicant from the rolls of the HGO, which was assailed in the Original Application, being O.A. No. 2583 of 2010. By impugned order, the learned Tribunal set aside the order of the Commandant as violative of principles of natural justice and further directed the Commandant to take back the applicant on the rolls of the HGO.

(3.) In Writ Petition Nos. 7656, 10704, 11595 and 12585 of 2011 which are also filed against separate orders of the Administrative Tribunal, the HGs who were removed from the rolls of the HGO were not given any prior notice for which reason the learned Tribunal allowed the Original Applications and directed the Commandant to take back those applicants also on the rolls of the HGO.