T.Tirupataiah vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 1998 Tel

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

                              W.P.No.6169 OF 2021

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief:

"to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in issuing the impugned order dt 9.1.2004 baring D.O.No.03/2004-N. HGs/A2/498/2004 (received on 16.2.2020 under RTI Act, 2005 on the ground of registration of criminal case vide Cr.No.1889/2003, dt 10.12.2003 though the said case ended in acquittal vide Lok Adalat Award dt 27.12.2003 as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust and against to the principles of natural justice and consequently set aside the same and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

Heard Sri D.Mohan Rao, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Home

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

When the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in

this writ petition is squarely covered by the Division Bench

Judgments of this Court in W.P.No.19455 of 2014 and batch,

dated 20.04.2018 and W.P.No.7784 of 2018 and W.P.(TR)

No.3129 of 2017, dated 28.02.2019 and contends that the

impugned removal order was passed without giving any

opportunity to the petitioner in terms of Rule 7(4) of the

Madras Home Guards Rules, 1949. Learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner further submits that the Division

Bench of this Court in its orders in W.P.No.19455 of 2014 and

batch, dated 20.04.2018 directed the respondents to reinstate

the petitioners therein into service without any benefits in

relation to their past service including seniority, continuity of

service and attendant benefits.

Learned Government Pleader appearing for the

respondents contended that the petitioner has approached

this Court after 17 years and hence, the writ petition is not

maintainable on the ground of delay and laches. Learned

Government Pleader further contended that in the affidavit

filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner has specially

stated that this Court passed orders for reinstatement of

Home Guards and the fact that he has approached this Court

by filing the writ petition itself shows that the petitioner has

not challenged the orders of removal within the stipulated

time. Therefore, there are no merits in the writ petition and

the same is liable to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submissions made by the

learned counsel on either side, this Court is of the view that

though the petitioner has approached this Court after 17 years

from the date of removal, his contention is that no orders of

removal were furnished to him. The petitioner has been

making series of representations to the respondents

requesting them to furnish the orders of removal. Since the

respondents have not furnished the orders of removal, the

petitioner has no other alternative except to approach this

Court by filing the present writ petition. The Division Bench

while dealing with the very same issue directed the

respondents to reinstate the petitioners therein into service, as

proper procedure as contemplated in Madras Home Guards

Rules, 1949, was not followed before passing the impugned

removal orders. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the

case of the petitioner deserves to be considered for

reinstatement.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing

the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for

reinstatement into service afresh subject to his medical fitness

and availability of vacancies. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand

closed.

________________________________ JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI

Date: 05.07.2021 rkk