ORDER:

1. The instant Writ Petition is filed questioning the orders passed by the respondent No.2 in R.C.No.90/HGS-Estt-1/2020 dated 04.09.2023, confirming the orders passed by the passed by the respondent No.4 vide D.O.No.732, No.1027/A2/HGs.Hyd/2019-20, dated 23.01.2020, removing the petitioner from the rolls of Home Guards Organization and sought to set aside the same and consequently to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner as Home Guard with all consequential benefits including seniority and back wages.

2. Heard Sri G.L.Narasimha Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-Home appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that while the petitioner was working at the Traffic Police Station, Abids, Hyderabad, the respondent No.4 placed him under suspension vide Proc. No. A1/HGs.Hyd/1029/2019 dated 31.07.2019 on the allegation that the petitioner had posted a viral WhatsApp message regarding acceptance of a bribe by a Home Guard, namely Sunil Kumar Sharma (HG-9381), for the release of a detained vehicle. Thereafter, the respondent No.4 issued a show-cause notice dated 05.08.2019, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 07.08.2019.

4. The learned counsel further submits that the Respondent No.4 issued another show-cause notice dated 21.08.2019 calling for a final explanation. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 23.08.2019, however, without considering these explanations, without furnishing the enquiry report and without affording an opportunity for cross-examination, the Respondent No.4 issued proceedings dated 23.01.2020 vide D.O. No. 732, No.1027/A2/HGs.Hyd/2019-20, removing the petitioner from the rolls of the Home Guards Organization.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the removal order dated 23.01.2020 refers to an “independent enquiry” and records a finding that the petitioner demanded a share in the bribe amount and, upon not receiving it, posted a message on social media, but in the show-cause notices only alleged that the petitioner posted a viral WhatsApp message and did not contain any allegation regarding demand for a share in the bribe. Neither Rohit Singh nor Shyam Lal stated that the petitioner demanded any share. Further, as a Home Guard in the Central Zone, the petitioner had no authority to release vehicles detained at Goshamahal Traffic Police Station and thus, the findings were beyond the scope of the charges and contrary to the principles of natural justice. Further, the enquiry report was never served on the petitioner and despite his RTI application dated 01.02.2020 seeking the report and related documents, no such material or witness statements were furnished.

6. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner initially filed W.P. No. 4452 of 2020 challenging the removal order dated 23.01.2020, which was dismissed on 28.02.2020 on the ground of availability of an alternative appellate remedy, granting liberty to the petitioner to avail the same. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an appeal on 30.03.2020 before the respondent No.2, which was rejected by a one-line order dated 30.09.2020 stating that it was “considered and rejected as it is time-barred.”

7. The learned counsel further submits that after rejection of the appeal, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 21038 of 2020 challenging both the removal order and the rejection of the appeal. This Court, by order dated 01.08.2023, allowed the writ petition by set aside the rejection order dated 30.09.2020 and remanded the matter to Respondent No.2 with a direction to reconsider the case on merits within four weeks. However, instead of furnishing the enquiry report and addressing the specific grounds raised, the Respondent No.2 passed the impugned order on 04.09.2023 in a mechanical manner, merely stating that the re