ORDER : Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J. 1. This writ petition is filed claiming the following relief: "...To issue Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent Commissioner of Police Vijayawada in removing the petitioner from his service without the petitioner from his service without considering the petitioners written explanation nor the Appeal preferred to the 2nd Respondent without following due procedure contemplated under law not even conducting enquiry by providing opportunity to the petitioner is illegal, unlawful and arbitrary against the Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of India in also violation of principles of natural justice consequently set aside the removal order by Respondent No. 3 vide proceedings C. No. 5061/H-1/2019, dated 27.02.2020 by further directing the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner the petitioner into service as Home Guard with all attendant benefits as per the Orders passed by this Hon'ble Court in W.P. No. 16218 of 2019 and bench dated 01.04.2021 and to pass such other order or orders..." 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. 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. But, the petitioner again absented for his duties from 15.05.2019 to 11.06.2019 (28 days). Even though the petitioner was counselled several times, he did not mend his attitude and continued the practice of unauthorized absence from his duties again from 04.07.2019 till the removal i.e., 27.02.2020 (239 days) and the petitioner became chronic absentee. 7. But, the petitioner again absented for his duties from 15.05.2019 to 11.06.2019 (28 days). Even though the petitioner was counselled several times, he did not mend his attitude and continued the practice of unauthorized absence from his duties again from 04.07.2019 till the removal i.e., 27.02.2020 (239 days) and the petitioner became chronic absentee. 7. It is further stated that a Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner vide Office C. No. 5061/H1/2019, dated 21.10.2019, calling for his written explanation as to why he should be removed from the service and his name should not be struck off from the rolls of Home Guards Organization on account of his un-authorized absence. The petitioner acknowledged the Show Cause Notice on 23.10.2019 and submitted his explanation on 23.10.2019 stating that due to serious ill health, he absented from duties and requested not to remove him from the services, as he had to look after his family. But, the petitioner did not produce any Medical Certificate to that effect. 8. While so, service guidelines were issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Home Guards, Andhra Pradesh vide Circular Memorandum in C. No. 167/HGs.Estt.I/2012, dated 16.02.2012, under which a Home Guards Disciplinary Committee was constituted and consisting of (1) Commissioner of Police, Vijayawada City, (2) Deputy Commissioner of Police (Admn), Vijayawada City and (3) Commandant, Home Guards Unit, Vijayawada Region discussed all the delinquencies in length committed by the petitioner and his defiant attitude in absenting from duties. The Committee observed that though the petitioner was given ample opportunities and counselled several times, he did not mend his attitude. The committee observed that the petitioner habitual absenting from duties did not deserve any consideration and a decision was taken to remove him from the service and his name should be struck off from the rolls of Home Guards Organization. Accordingly, orders were issued vide this office Proceedings in C. No. 5061/H1/2019, dated 27.02.2020 removing the petitioner from his service and his name was stuck-off from the rolls of Home Guards Organization. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 3 issued removal proceedings to the petitioner without conducting detailed enquiry as contemplated under the Rules and without providing an opportunity of hearing and without considering his explanation and erroneously passed the impugned order. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Respondent No. 3 issued removal proceedings to the petitioner without conducting detailed enquiry as contemplated under the Rules and without providing an opportunity of hearing and without considering his explanation and erroneously passed the impugned order. He further submits that Home Guard is a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the I.P.C.; as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, 1948, as such they cannot be removed from service except by affording an opportunity to explain the reason for their absence and without conducting an enquiry in view of the protection provided under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is holding civil post though they are allegedly enrolled as members of Home Guards Organisation and failure to follow the procedure prescribed under rules and Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India vitiates the termination/removal/dismissal of the Home Guard from service. On this ground alone, the petitioners are liable to be reinstated into service by setting aside the impugned orders of removal/termination/dismissal and they placed reliance on various judgments, which will be referred at appropriate stage. He further submits that in similar circumstances this Court rendered common judgment in W.P. No. 16218 of 2019 and batch, dated 01.04.2021. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be allowed. 11. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I reiterated the contentions as stated in the counter affidavit wherein it is strenuously contended that the services conditions of Home Guards are governed by Chapter 52 of Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. In removal of the order of the petitioner from his service, the respondents strictly complied with the rules for taking disciplinary action against the Home Guards. Apart from that Home Guards services are only voluntary service on payment of honorarium and they cannot be considered as members of Civil services, thereby, they cannot claim any protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Chapter 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual not only deals with service conditions of Home Guards, but also deals with discipline and administration. Chapter 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual not only deals with service conditions of Home Guards, but also deals with discipline and administration. The officers of the police who are in charge of home guards and the civilians who hold ranks in the home guards organisation should treat the home guards as volunteers and not as subordinates and that they can be removed by strictly following the procedure prescribed under the Home Guards Act. The main requirement is reasonable opportunity be afforded to the Home Guard before removal by competent authority. Therefore, the petitioners cannot claim that they are holding civil post to claim protection under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and their services are totally governed by Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 12. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I and perused the material placed on record. 13. The Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad in W.P. No. 35460 of 2013 and batch held that "it can safely be concluded that in the present batch of cases, the Home Guards are governed by Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act and the rules framed under Madras Home Guards Act". 14. Thereby, Chapter 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual cannot be applied to govern the conditions of enrolment and discipline in the Home Guards Organisation. Hence, the contention of the learned Government Pleader for Services-I is hereby rejected while holding that the petitioner is not governed by Chapter 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Police Manual. 15. A bare look at the provisions of the Act and Rules framed under the Madras Home Guards Act adopted by the Andhra Pradesh Adaptation of Laws Order, 1957, it is clear that Home Guards are under the direct control of the State though it is styled as Home Guards Organisation consisting of volunteers, who enrolled their names as Home Guards. 16. Enquiry under clause (2) of Article 311 gives a Constitutional mandate to the principle or natural justice and the "Audi Alteram partem" rule by providing that a civil servant shall not be dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank until after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charge against him and has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. 17. In Satyavir Singh v. Union of India 1985 INSC 196 : AIR 1986 SC 555 the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as follows: A civil servant who has been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying to his case one of the Clauses of the second proviso to Article 311(2) or an analogous service rule has two remedies available to him. These remedies are: (i) the appropriate departmental remedy provided for in the relevant service rules, and (ii) if still dissatisfied, invoking the court's power of judicial review." 18. Therefore, Civil servants who have been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying the second proviso to Article 311(2) or an analogous service rule the right to a full and complete inquiry, an appeal or revision unless a situation envisaged by the second proviso is prevailing at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision application etc. Thus, the Civil Servants cannot be removed except by following the procedure contemplated under rules; in the absence of any rules, by following the principles of natural justice, an enquiry has to be conducted in view of the protection available to the Civil Servants under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. In the present facts of the cases, the main grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the petitioner is a civil Servant and his service is protected by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. As held above, taking into consideration of nature of duties, the procedure for appointment and selection process etc, in the absence of explanation, as in Section 10 of The U.P. Home Guards Act, 1963, to Section 11 of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act, they are deemed to be civil servants for all practical purposes by applying the tests laid down in State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta 1966 INSC 196 : AIR 1967 SC 884 . 19. Therefore, analysing the law laid down by the Apex Court in various judgments including constitutional bench judgment of "State of Assam v. Kanak Chandra Dutta" (referred supra), wherein it is held that the petitioners/Home Guards are holding Civil Post, and no punishment be imposed against them without conducting any enquiry in view of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the point is held against the respondents and in favour of the petitioner holding that the Home Guards are holders of Civil Post and they cannot be removed from service except by conducting necessary enquiry. 20. In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. v. The Union of India 1976 INSC 133 : AIR 1976 SC 1785 , the Apex Court held that it is far too well settled that an authority who is in making an order in exercise of its quasi-judicial function, must record reasons in support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial order must be supported by reasons. The rule requiring reasons in support of a quasi-judicial order is as basic as following the principles of natural justice and the rule must be observed in its proper spirit. 21. In Gurdial Singh Fijji v. State of Punjab 1979 INSC 65 : (1979) 2 SCC 368 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, dealing with a service matter, held that "rubber-stamp reason" is not enough and that reasons "are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. 22. The order impugned in the writ petition attract serious penal consequences, which deprived the petitioner's livelihood. When the respondents dealing with life of an individual, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, they have to deal with every allegation in the explanation justifying their action or inaction and answer the same. But, for one reason or the other, the respondents did not consider the explanations submitted by the petitioner in detail, but removed or terminated his enrolment in a routine manner by just recording that the explanation is "not satisfactory." Therefore, on this ground also, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 23. In view of the law declared by the Apex Court in the judgments referred supra, the removal of the petitioner from Home Guards Organisation is against the principles of natural justice as the impugned order is cryptic without recording any reason, more particularly explanation submitted by the petitioner. On this ground also, the order impugned in the petition is liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Further, the impugned proceedings issued by Respondent No. 3 vide C. No. 5061/H1/2019, dated 27.02.2020 are hereby set-side. On this ground also, the order impugned in the petition is liable to be set aside. 24. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Further, the impugned proceedings issued by Respondent No. 3 vide C. No. 5061/H1/2019, dated 27.02.2020 are hereby set-side. It is needless to observe that the Respondents are at liberty to proceed further and to pass appropriate orders after following due procedure as contemplated under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Home Guards Act and Rules governing the service of Home Guards. Consequently, the Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with immediate effect. There shall be no order as to costs. 25. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the writ petition shall also stand closed.