Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/17838/2021 of Kadali.Hussain, Vs THE STATE OF AP on 21 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 22 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No. 17838/2021 BETWEEN: 1. KADALI.HUSSAIN, S/o. VENKATESWARAO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, HOME GUARD No. 161 (UNDER REMOVAL), R/o. D.No.1-117,GANDHI BOMMA CENTRE,
APHC010253032021
IN THE H
(
TUESDAY, T
THE HONOURABLE S
WRIT
BETWEEN:
1. KADALI.HUSSAIN,
YEARS, HOME G
D.No.1-117,GANDH
VERAVASARAMVIL
DISTRICT.
1. THE STATE OF AP
BY ITS PRINCIP
SECRETARIAT
GUNTUR DISTRICT
2. THE DIRECTOR G
ANDHRAPRADESH
GUNTUR DISTICT.
3. THE ADDITIONAL
GUARDS) POLICE
DISTRICT.
4. THE
COMMANDA
COMMISSIONER
VISAKHAPATNAM
5. THE SUPERINTEN
DISTRICT, ELURU.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
HE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR
T PETITION No. 17838/2021
S/o. VENKATESWARAO, AGED AB
UARD No. 161 (UNDER REMOVAL
HI BOMMA CENTRE, BOKKAVARI S
LLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GO
...PETI
AND
P, THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
PAL SECRETARY HOME DEPAR
BUILDINGS,
VELAGAPUDI,AMARA
T.
GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNME
H, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, MANG
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
HEAD QUARTERS MANGALAGIRI, G
ANT,
,
HOME
GUARDA,
O/O
OF
POLICE,
VISAKHAP
DIATRICT.
NDENT OF POLICE, , WEST GO
.RESPONDENTS
...RESPOND
R RAO
BOUT 33
), R/o.
STREET,
ODAVARI
TIONER
H, REP.
RTMENT,
AVATHI,
ENT OF
GALGIRI,
(HOME
GUNTUR
O
THE
ATNAM,
ODAVARI
DENT(S):
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS declaring the action of The 2nd Respondent in passing Rejection order vide Rc.
no.344/HGs. Esst/2019-5 dated 27.01.2020 coupled with Removal er passed by the 5th Respondent vide C No.8514/H 1 014 under D.O.No.05/
2015 dated 31.01.2015 in removing the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards organization without conducting proper enquiry is being is illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Rule 20 of The Andhra Pradesh civil service ( CCA)
Rules1961, violation of natural justice, offends the Honble High Court judgment held in by JJ VVS Rao and K.G Sankar, reported in ALT 2012
(4) page 324 (DB) besides Article 14,21 and 311(2) Constitution of India by setting aside same and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of services and to pass such other order or orders.
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.TATA SINGAIAH GOUD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.GP FOR HOME
2.GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The services of the petitioner as Home Guard (161) was terminated on 31.01.2015 on the ground of exhibition of gross misconduct and reprehensible behavior by quarrelling each other in the Police Station premises with regard to sharing of illegal gratification collected towards Divali festival.
2. The present Writ Petition is filed to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into services as Home Guard with full back wages and continuity of service on the ground that termination of the petitioner without conducting proper enquiry is being illegal, arbitrary, contrary to Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Service (CAS) Rules 1961. And further stated that the 5th respondent ought to have to conduct enquiry about facts and circumstance, whether really the petitioner was involved in the issue or not, no such exercise was undertaken by the 5th respondent. Hence, the removal order passed by the 5th respondent is contrary to the Judgment of the common High Court as held in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others v. P. Prasad Rao and another reported in 2012(4) ALT 324 (DB), and prayed to allow the Writ Petition.
3. Admittedly, the 5th respondent has issued show cause notice dated 15.11.2014 calling for explanation from the petitioner. However, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.11.2014. Without considering the said explanation, termination order was ordered by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that without taking note of the explanation impugned action is taken contending that the action is taken without hearing the petitioner, without considering explanation to the show cause notice, the same is stigmatic in nature and therefore, would be done only after proper enquiry is conducted. Therefore, the counsel prays for interference into the matter.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the order in W.P. Nos.23101 of 2021 batch. I am the Party to the Order. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2025, observing as follows: “Despite the respondents having terminated the petitioners without adhering to due process and the Audi Alteram Partem doctrine, the justification or otherwise for the terminations remain to be examined after issuance appropriate show cause notices. There may be valid grounds for the discontinuation also. However, this Court in the light of the conclusions arrived at supra and the orders in W.P. No.35460 of 2013 & batch dated 08.06.2018 as also in the better interest of the petitioners/ Home Guards opines that they shall attend and pass the physical fitness test to be conducted by the respondent authorities. Depending on the result in the physical fitness test, the deserving candidates shall be reinstated as Home Guards. Any such reinstatement, however, shall not confer benefit of any kind to the Home Guards / petitioners like seniority, back wages etc.” And stated that the petitioner’s case is identical in nature and requested to pass similar order.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not refuted the same.
6. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Writ Petition in terms of the order dated 15.07.2025 in W.P. No.23101 of 2021 and batch. This Court while disposing of the above writ petition has directed that the petitioners shall attend and pass physical fitness test to be conducted by the respondent authorities and depending upon the result in the physical fitness test, the petitioner can reinstate as Home Guard.
7. Acceding the request made by the counsel for the petitioner, the present Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to call for the physical fitness test, petitioner herein directed to attend the physical fitness test to be conducted by the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities are directed to pass appropriate orders on the basis of the result in the physical fitness test. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 22.09.2026
Harin
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
W.P.No. 17838 of 2021
Date: 22-09-2026
Harin