IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
G. Potha Raju – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 16328 of 2021
Decided On : 08-07-2024
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Home Guards Act, 1948 - Removal of Home Guard without due process - The petitioner was removed from service without a proper inquiry or consideration of his explanation, violating principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) - The court held that Home Guards are civil servants and cannot be removed without following due procedure. (Paras 9, 19, 24)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized the necessity of conducting a fair inquiry and providing reasons for removal, as per the principles of natural justice. (Paras 20, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Home Guard, was removed from service without a proper inquiry after prolonged absences due to illness, despite submitting explanations.
Findings of Court:
The removal was set aside due to lack of adherence to due process and principles of natural justice.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the protections under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Home Guards are civil servants and must be afforded due process before removal.
Result: Writ petition allowed; removal order set aside.
ORDER :
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief:
2. The case of the petitioner is as follows:
3. The petitioner herein got selected as Home Guard at Vijayawada city Unit in the year 2007. Since then, the petitioner has been discharging his duties till 2019. While so, during the month of July 2019 when the petitioner was working in Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada, he suffered with serious jaundice and he repeatedly requests the SHO, Ajith Singh Nagar Police Station, Vijayawada and Respondent No. 4 herein for sanction of leave him leave and the same was unheard by them. As the petitioner was unable to discharge his duties on 04.07.2019, he was forced to go absent from his duty. In fact, the petitioner sent a request word and written letters through his family members. But, the Respondents did not consider the said request.
4. It is further stated that the petitioner underwent treatment in Government General Hospital from 04.07.2019 to 22.10.2019 On the next day i.e., 23.10.2019, the petitioner approached the Respondent No. 4 and made a request to take him into duty. But, the Respondent Authorities did not allot duty to the petitioner and the petitioner was served with a Show Cause Notice dated 21.10.2019 directing him to submit an explanation for his absence. Then the petitioner submitted his explanation promptly on the same day i.e., 23.10.2019 explaining the circumstances under which he was absent from his duties and also made request to the Respondent Authorities to take back to the duty. From that day onwards, the petitioner has been running around the Respondents for reengaging his services by the Authorities. But, the petitioner was not allowed to render service.
5. It is further case of the petitioner that suddenly on 27.02.2020, Respondent No. 3 passed orders removing the petitioner from his services as Home Guard without considering the petitioner's explanation and without there being any enquiry and without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to make his submissions.
6. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the Respondents wherein it is stated that the petitioner herein absented from his duties without any permission or leave for 107 days i.e. from 08.10.2014 to 22.01.2015. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner vide Office C. No. 113/H1/2015, dated 25.02.2015. After receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the Home Guard Disciplinary Committee considered it as the first mistake and took him into the duties. Again, the petitioner absented from his duties from 05.09.2017 to 05.01.2018 (123 days) without any permitted leave or permission. The petitioner appeared before the officers/Respondents and stated that he suffered from Jaundice, Typhoid and Abdomen pain and requested to consider his absence as genuine sick. Again the petitioner request was considered and he was taken to duty and he was counselled by the Commandant, Home Guards Organization, Vijayawada Region.
Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab 1979 INSC 65 : (1979) 2 SCC 368
Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India 1976 INSC 133 : AIR 1976 SC 1785
State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta 1966 INSC 196 : AIR 1967 SC 884
Satyavir Singh v. Union of India 1985 INSC 196 : AIR 1986 SC 555
Home Guards are civil servants entitled to due process under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, necessitating a fair inquiry before removal.
A.P.Police Manual or Police Standing Orders are not binding on the Home Guards since Home Guards are governed by A.P. Home Guards Act, 1948 and rules framed thereunder in view of the adoption of the ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal from service under Article 311(2)(b) without conducting a regular departmental enquiry and without proper justification viola....
Dismissal without a proper inquiry under Article 311 (2) (b) deemed arbitrary and illegal, requiring substantial justification beyond mere allegations.
Disciplinary actions must follow due process, and absence due to illness cannot be deemed willful misconduct without proper inquiry.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.