Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 264 (TS)

N. Veerabhadram v. Commissioner of Police

2025-04-07

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER : (SUREPALLI NANDA, J.) Heard Sri R.Rajashekhar Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under : “…to issue a writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction, to declare the action of the Respondents in not reinstating the petitioner as Home Guard, though he passed all the events conducted by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Honble Court in WP.No.5981/2014, dated 04/09/2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutonal and void being violative of Arts.14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service as Home Guard with all consequential benefits and to pass…” 3. It is specific case of the petitioner that the Respondents are not reinstating the petitioner as Home Guard, though the petitioner passed all the events conducted by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Honble Court in WP.No.5981/2014, dated 04.09.2018 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional. Aggrieved by the said action of the respondents, the petitioners preferred the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD : 4. The counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and in particular para Nos. 6 to 9 are extracted hereunder:- 6. It is submitted that aggrieved by the above order of removal, the petitioner herein approached the High Court and filed W.P.No 24527/2012 questioning the action of respondents in not reinstating him as Home Guard in spite of acquittal in criminal case vide CC.No. 124/2011 on the file of IV Addl. Judl. First Class Magistrate Warangal, dated 8-9-2011 as arbitrary and illegal. Later, it was withdrawn for challenging the same before the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner herein had approached the then Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and filed ?.? No 9552/2012. The Tribunal has issued order dated 13-12-2012 and directed the respondents to continue the applicant as Home Guard by issuing necessary orders in this regard. Aggrieved by the above order of Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal dated 13-12- 2012, the Government filed Writ Petition No 5981/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. No 9552/2012. The Tribunal has issued order dated 13-12-2012 and directed the respondents to continue the applicant as Home Guard by issuing necessary orders in this regard. Aggrieved by the above order of Hon'ble AP Administrative Tribunal dated 13-12- 2012, the Government filed Writ Petition No 5981/2014 before the Hon'ble High Court. 7. It is submitted that the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition No 5981/2014 on 4-09-2018 subject to following conditions: That the first respondent i.e., the petitioner herein shall be subjected to a physical test to ascertain his fitness before being re-inducted in service as a Home Guard. An objective and transparent procedure shall be adopted by the State and its officials in this regard and if the petitioner deserves, he shall again be enrolled on the rolls of the Home Guards Organization. Enrolment of the petitioner shall, however. not have the effect of conferring upon him the benefit of the continuity of service. seniority, arrears of pay etc., for all purposes. His enrolment would be on par with fresh appointments. 8. It is submitted that as per the directions of Hon'ble High court, the physical efficiency test was conducted and the petitioner qualified in it. Since petitioner's enrollment would be on par with fresh appointments, antecedents verification was called for by the Commissioner of Police, Warangal and the petitioner was directed to submit the Attestation Form. The petitioner submitted Attestation Form dated 23-07-2019 and at Col. NO. 11 of the Attestation Form which read "whether you were involved in any criminal case?", he ticked 'No'. On verification, it was found that petitioner had furnished false information by suppressing his involvement in criminal case in Cr. no. 49 of 2011 under Sec. 419 R/w 34 of IPC was registered against him at Wardhannapet PS. Though he was acquitted in criminal case vide CC. No 124/2011 on the file of IV Addl. Judi, First Class Magistrate Warangal, vide order dated 8-9-2011, he should have filled the relevant Columns in the Attestation Form 11(a) to 11(b) correctly, instead of false information. He has also signed that the declaration that if the information given by him was found to be false and factual information is suppressed, he would be disqualified for any service (including voluntary service) under the Government. He has also signed that the declaration that if the information given by him was found to be false and factual information is suppressed, he would be disqualified for any service (including voluntary service) under the Government. Suppression of material information and making faise statement in the Attestation Form has a clear bearing on the character/conduct and antecedents of a person employed/to be employed. CP, Warangal was requested by DGP, TS, Hyderabad to issue Show Cause Notice in this matter and take appropriate action. 9. In view of above, the Commissioner of police, Warangal had issued Show Cause Notice dated 25/03/2021 to the petitioner requiring him to furnish his explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the Show Cause Notice. But the petitioner refused to take Show Cause Notice; therefore a panchanama was conducted on 21-04-2021 and finally pasted on the door of the house of applicant. It is submitted that the Petitioner/ applicant intentionally refused to take the Show Cause Notice and caused further delay. The respondents will consider the case of the petitioner for fresh enrollment as Home Guard, if he submits explanation to the Show Cause Notice dated:25- 03-2021 issued by Commissioner of Police, Warangal. It is submitted that suppressing all these facts petitioner had filed the Writ Petition. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner on an earlier occasion approached this Court by filing W.P.No. 24527 of 2012 questioning the action of the respondents in not reinstating the petitioner as Home Guard in spite of acquittal in Criminal Case vide CC.No.124 of 2011, dated 08.09.2011 on the file of VII Additional First Class Magistrate, Warangal and subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition, the same had been withdrawn for challenging the same before the then A.P.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and accordingly, the petitioner had filed O.A.No.9552/ 2012 on the file of the then AP.Administrative Tribunal at Hyderabad and the Tribunal had issued an order, dated 13.12.2012 directing the respondents to continue the petitioner as Home Guard by issuing necessary orders. Aggrieved by the said order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.12.2012, the Government filed W.P.No.5981 of 2014 before this Court and the same is dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 04.09.2018 observing as under:- “1. Aggrieved by the said order of the A.P.Administrative Tribunal, dated 13.12.2012, the Government filed W.P.No.5981 of 2014 before this Court and the same is dismissed by this Court vide order, dated 04.09.2018 observing as under:- “1. The first-applicant shall be subjected to a physical test to ascertain his fitness before being re-inducted in service as a Home Guard. An objective and transparent procedure shall be adopted by the State and its police officials in this regard and if the petitioner deserves, he shall gain be enrolled on the rolls of the Home Guards Organization. 2. Enrolment of the petitioner shall, how ever, not have the effect of conferring upon him the benefit of continuity of service seniority, arrears of pay etc. for all purposes. His enrolment w ould be on par w ith fresh appointments.” 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in pursuance to the directions of this Court, dated 04.09.2018 passed in W.P.No. 5981 of 2014, the physical efficiency test was conducted and the petitioner qualified in the subject test, but how ever the petitioner had not received any order of appointment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the Writ Petition. 7. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents placing reliance on the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above) contends that the petitioner submitted Attestation form at the time of seeking employment, dated 23.07.2019 and at column No.11 of the Attestation form which sought information pertaining to petitioner’s involvement in any criminal case, petitioner ticked the answered as “No” , on verification, it was found that the petitioner had furnished false information by suppressing petitioner’s involvement in Criminal Case in Cr.No.49 of 2011 under Section 419 read with 34 of IPC which w as registered against the petitioner at Wardhannapet P.S. and the petitioner had been issued show-cause notice, dated 25.03.2021 by the Commissioner of Police, Warangal, but how ever the petitioner refused to receive the same and hence, the said notice w as pasted on the door of petitioner’s house. 8. 8. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents further submits that upon the petitioner furnishing the detailed explanation to the show -cause notice, dated 25.03.2021 issued to the petitioner, the request of the petitioner’s would be considered for appointment as Home Guard. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that as on date show -cause notice, dated 25.03.2021 had not been furnished to the petitioner and upon the 1 st respondent furnishing the same to the petitioner, the petitioner would submit a detailed explanation in response to the show -cause notice dated 25.03.2021 issued to the petitioner within a reasonable period and thereafter, the same may be directed to be considered by the 1 st respondent in accordance to law. 10. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submission made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of the respondents c) The order of this Court, dated 04.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.5981 of 2014 (referred to and extracted above). d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above). d) The averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 (referred to and extracted above). e) The fact as borne on record that the show-cause notice, dated 25.03.2021 issued to the petitioner by the 1st respondent had not been furnished to the petitioner and had been pasted on the door of the petitioner’s house even according to the averments made at para No.9 of counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 The Writ Petition is disposed of directing the 1st respondent to furnish the copy of the show -cause notice, dated 25.03.2024 to the petitioner herein within a period of one (01) week from the date of receipt of copy of the order and upon the petitioner receiving the said show - cause notice, dated 25.03.2021 of the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner is directed to furnish a detailed explanation to the said show-cause notice, dated 25.03.2021 within a period of two (02) weeks thereafter to the 1st respondent herein, the 1st respondent upon receipt of the said explanation furnished by the petitioner in response to the show-cause notice dated 25.03.2021 issued to the petitioner within the time period as stipulated as above is directed to decide the subject issue pertaining to reinstatement of the petitioner as Home Guard in accordance to law in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks thereafter and pass appropriate orders and duly communicate the decision to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.