Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/24610/2024 of M KISHORE BABU Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 10 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 24610 OF 2024 Between: 1. M KISHORE BABU, S/o. M. Govinda Reddy, Aged about b 33 years, Occ. Home Guard (remove from
APHC010475902024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
Between:
1. M KISHORE BABU, S/o. M. Govinda Reddy, Aged about b 33 years, Occ.
Home Guard (remove from service), R/o. Pothambattu Village, Chittoor Town, Chittoor District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Represented by its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District.
2. The Superintendent of Police, Chittoor, Chittoor District.
3. The Commandant Home Guards, Kurnool Zone, Kurnool.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Admin Reserved (AR-I), Chittoor District
5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Home Guards, Chittoor.
...Respondents
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 topleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the orders passed in D.O.No.06/2018, dated
31.01.2018 imposing a punishment of removal from service passed by the 2nd Respondent as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to Law and further set aside the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in PD.O.No.06/2018, dated 31.01.2018 by reinstating the Petitioner into service as a Home Guard and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased Pleased to direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service as a Home Guard by suspending the orders passed by the 2nd Respondent in D.O.No.06/2018, dated 31.01.2018, pending disposal of the above Writ Petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MANOJ KUMAR BETHAPUDI
Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I
The Court made the following order:
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:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I.
2. The writ petition is filed challenging the order of removal dated 31.01.2018 passed by the Superintendent of Police removing the petitioner from the post of Home Guard on the ground that he was involved in criminal case in Crime No.7 of 2016 under Section 341, 323, 143 r/w. 34 IPC of Irala Police Station and Crime No.8 of 2016 under Section 341 & 186 r/w. 34 IPC of the very same Police Station.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have not issued any Show-Cause-Notice nor conducted any enquiry and solely based on registration of FIRs, he was removed from the service. He further submits that in both the criminal cases, the petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 30.03.2016 in C.C.No.74 of 2016 and judgment dated 15.09.2017 in C.C.No.75 of 2016. He also submits that issue is covered by the orders dated 15.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.23101 of 2021 & batch, wherein, this Court after considering the contentions therein, in elaboration had concluded as under:- “…..15. 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……”
4. In the above case, the orders of terminations were set-aside with a direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioners therein, subject to passing of physical test and depending upon physical fitness.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and also in view of the judgment referred to above, the order of termination dated 31.01.2018 is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for reinstatement, subject to physical fitness as directed in the above said W.P.No.23101 of 2021 & batch.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_____________________ BALAJI MEDAMALLI, J
Note: Copy of W.P.No. 23101 of 2021 & batch may be enclosed along with order B/o. GVK
Dt. 11.08.2026
GVK