Konda Janaiah vs The State of Telangana
- Court
- High Court for the State of Telangana
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
*
WRIT PETITION No.15670 OF 2025
Between:
Konda Janaiah
…Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Department of Home, and three others
…Respondents
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON: 30.04.2026
SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
1. Whether Reporters of Local
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
: Yes/No
2. Whether the copies of judgment
: Yes/No
may be marked to Law
Reports/Journals
3. Whether Their Lordship/Ladyship
: Yes/No
wish to see the fair copy of
judgment
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
2
SK,J
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
+ WRIT PETITION NO.15670 of 2025
%Dated 30.04.2026
# Konda Janaiah
… Petitioner
and
$ The State of Telangana, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Home
Department, and two others
…Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri S.Lakshmikanth
^ Counsel for Respondents : Govt. Pleader for Services (Home)
< GIST :
> HEAD NOTE :
? Cases referred :
1 (1997) 7 SCC 443
2 (2007) 10 SCC 71
3 (2016) 16 SCC 464
4 1986 (Supp) SCC 95
3
SK,J
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH
WRIT PETITION No.15670 OF 2025
DATED: 30.04.2026
Between:
Konda Janaiah
…Petitioner
AND
1. The State of Telangana, represented by its Principal
Secretary, Department of Home, Telangana State and
three others
…Respondents
ORDER:
1 . Heard Sri S.Lakshmikanth, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Government Pleader for Services (Home)
appearing for the respondents.
. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits
2
that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of
Police on 20.11.2018 vide Procd.No.Rc.1160/E1-
127HR/2018/RO CNo.667/2018 and he was kept under
the period of probation as per Telangana State and
Subordinate Services Rule, 1996 (for brevity the
Rules, 1996”). During the period of probation, the wife of
4
SK,J
the petitioner filed a criminal case against the petitioner
and his parents vide Crime No.420 of 2021 under Section
498 of Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act on the file of Godavarikhani-I Police Station
and the same was numbered as CC No.634 of 2021 on the
file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class,
Godavarikhani. In view of the same the respondent
authorities have initiated Departmental proceedings
against the petitioner by issuing Memo
No.L&O/BII/B9/203/2021-22, dated 23.04.2022 pursuant
to Memorandum No.PR No.18/2022/No.HCP/B-
1/B9/2023/2021-2022 dated 15.03.2022 with the same
set of allegations without considering the facts and
circumstances. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the
initiation of Departmental proceedings against him, filed
W.P.No.22292 of 2022 and the said writ petition this Court
granted interim orders on 29.04.2022 directing the
respondent authorities and the Inquiring Officer therein not
to proceed with the departmental proceedings.
5
SK,J
3 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submits that while it being so, the respondent No.3 issued
Proc.Rc.No.984/E3-37/CHR./2018-23, dated 08.12.2023
extending the period of probation of the petitioner for a
period of six months w.e.f. 09.06.2023 i.e. one year after
the limitation, without appreciating the facts. Thereafter,
the respondent No.4 has issued similar orders on
09.01.2024 by extending the probation for a period of six
months w.e.f. 09.06.2021, which is two years after the
limitation period. While the petitioner was working as
Sub-Inspector of Police at Jubilee Hills Police Station, the
respondent No.3 issued Proc.No.984/E-37/CHR/2018-25
dated 26.05.2025 terminating the probation of the
petitioner and discharged him from service as per
Rule-17 (a) (ii) of TS & SS Rules, 1996 and respondent
No.4/Commissioner of Police also issued consequential
orders on 31.05.2025 vide letter No.HCP/E/E1/0125/
2020-25.
6
SK,J
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the petitioner has completed more than 6½ years of service
by the date of issuing termination order though the
petitioner has successfully completed his period of
probation for a period of two years within a continuous
period of three years and the impugned termination orders
are contrary to the Rule-18 and 21 of TS & SS Rules, 1996.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
Rules 18 and 21 of TS and SS Rule, 1996 clarifies that the
probation period of the petitioner is deemed to be
completed and successful as the orders of extension of
period of probation or revocation of probation were never
passed, after the successful completion of probation for a
period of two years within a continuous period of three
years and by operation of the above provisions of law the
petitioner services was deemed declared successfully in the
year, 2021 itself and in view of the same, the order dated
08.12.2023 in Proc.Rc.No.984/E3-37/CHR/2018-23, RO
No.782/2023 and order dated 09.01.2024 in
7
SK,J
Proc.No.HCP/E/E1/0125/2020-2024, D.O.No.426,
extending the petitioner’s probation period retrospectively
has no significance in the eye of law and in view of the
same the consequential consequential orders dated
26.05.2025 in Proc.Rc.No.984/E3-37/CHR/2018-25 RO
No.284/2025 and Order dated 31.05.2025 (02.06.2025)
in Proc.No.HCP/E/E1/0125/2020-25, D.O.No.6541,
terminating and discharging the petitioner from service are
contrary to law and requested to allow the writ petition by
setting aside the termination orders.
. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the
6
following Judgments;
1
1. Dayaram Dayal vs. State of M.P.
2. Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs. Rajkot
2
Municipal Corporation
3
3. R. Venkata Ramudu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
4. Om Parkash Maurya vs. U.P.Cooperative Sugar
4
Factories Federation, Lucknow
1
(1997) 7 SCC 443
2
(2007) 10 SCC 71
3
(2016) 16 SCC 464
4
1986 (Supp) SCC 95
8
SK,J
7. On the other hand the learned Government Pleader
for Services (Home) basing on the counter submits that the
petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil)
on 20.11.2018 under Rule-16 (a) of TG & SS Rules, 1996
vide Office orders RO No.667.2018, dated 28.11.2018 and
was placed on probation for a period of two years on duty
within a continuous period of three years from the date of
appointment. The petitioner never performed his
legitimates duties to the utmost satisfaction of superior
officers and during the short tenure of period after he was
reported as Sub-Inspector of Police he was dealt under
Minor PR vide No. Minor-PR/577/2020 (No.HW-
1/PR/4819-2020-21) dated 12.11.2020 by the DCP, West
Zone for his gross-negligence towards his duties and was
awarded with punishment of PPI for one year without effect
on his future increments and Pension vide D.O No.1970,
dated 18.03.2021 and in view of the same the probation of
the petitioner was extended for a period of six months from
12.12.2020 vide order RO No.387/2021 dated 29.07.2021.
Thereafter the petitioner was placed under suspension vide
9
SK,J
D.O.No.8095 dated 03.11.2021 for having involved in a
Criminal Case in Crime No.420/2020 registered for the
offences under Section 498-A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act. Pending the suspension proceedings, the
petitioner approached this Court to stall the departmental
proceedings till conclusion of the criminal case vide CC
No.634/2021 on the file of I Additional Judicial Magistrate
of First Class, Godavarikhani and in view of the interim
orders passed by this Court in WP No.22292 of 2022, the
Departmental Enquiry was stopped.
The learned Government Pleader further submits
8.
that as per Rule 18 (a) of TS and SS Rule, 1996, at the end
of the prescribed or extended period of probation, as the
case may be, the appointing authority shall consider
whether the probationer should be considered to have
satisfactorily completed his period of probation. In the
nd
instant case, during the 2 time extension of probation
period the petitioner was under suspension for his
involvement in the criminal case as such the probation of
10
SK,J
the petitioner could not be declared under deeming
provision as the end of maximum (3) years of probation
period, the petitioner was under suspension on 03.11.2024
as such Rule 18 (a) and (b) will not be attracted to the case
of the petitioner.
9. The learned Government Pleader further submits
that a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
19.11.2024 with instructions to explain the reasons as to
why his probation should not be terminated under Rule 16
and 17 of TG and SS Rules, 1996 for his responsible
behavior/misconduct/performance towards his legitimate
duties, the petitioner submitted his explanation on
25.04.2025 to the show-cause and the said explanation
was not convincing and the involvement of the petitioner in
a criminal case and indiscipline attitude during the
probation period being objectionable and after careful
examination of the matter, the probation of the petitioner
was terminated and he was discharged from service with
immediate effect vide order dated 26.05.2025.
11
SK,J
10. The learned Government Pleader further submits
that the petitioner was terminated and discharged from
service only on account of unsatisfactory performance
during the probation period, but not for involvement in a
criminal case and there are no merits and requested to
dismiss the writ petitioner.
11. After hearing both sides and on perusing the
record, this Court is of the considered view that the
petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on
20.11.2018. As per the appointment orders, the probation
period for a period of 2 years on duty with continuous
period of 3 years from the date of appointment. Before
completion of two years, the respondents have issued show
cause notice to the petitioner vide No.Minor PR
577/2020(No.HW-1/PR/4819/2020-21) dated 12.11.2020
by the DCP, West Zone, Hyderabad and imposed
punishment of postponement of one increment without
effect on his future increments and pension vide
D.O.No.1970, dated 18.03.2021. Thereafter, the
12
SK,J
respondents have extended the probation of the petitioner
for a period of 6 months from 12.12.2020 under Rule
17(a)(ii) of A.P.S. & S.S. Rules, 1996 for his unsatisfactory
performance through proceedings dated 29.07.2021. The
said period was completed on 11.06.2021, but the
respondents have passed orders on 29.07.2021 after expiry
of the said period. The petitioner was involved in criminal
case in Cr.No.420 of 2021 filed by his wife under Section
498-A IPC and Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and the
respondents have suspended the petitioner from service on
03.11.2021. Pending enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated
into service on 04.04.2022 and subsequently, the
nd
respondents have 2 time extended the probation period of
the petitioner for a period of six months w.e.f 09.06.2021
vide proceedings RO.No.782/2023 dated 08.12.2023. The
said period of extension of probation was also completed on
05.12.2021. The respondents have extended the probation
period after expiry of the said period. The petitioner has
continued in service after expiry of the extended probation
period on 09.12.2021 without any proceedings.
13
SK,J
12. The respondents have issued a show cause notice
on 19.11.2024 for discharging the petitioner from service
under Rules 16 and 17 of TS & SS Rules,1996 in view of
his indiscipline behavior/misconduct/unsatisfactory
performance towards his legitimate duties. In response to
the same, the petitioner has submitted his explanation
stating that the petitioner’s services were deemed
regularization in view of non extension of probationary
period and continued in service in the department. Without
taking into account of the explanation of the petitioner, the
respondents have passed the present impugned order dated
26.05.2025 and communicated the same through order
dated 31.05.2025 by the respondent No.4.
13 . The main contention of the petitioner is that he
was appointed on 20.11.2018 and he has completed his
two years of service without any punishment. After
completion of two years, the respondents have imposed
punishment of postponement of one annual grade
increment without effect on future increments on
14
SK,J
18.03.2021 and thereafter, the respondents have extended
the probation period of petitioner from 12.12.2020 in spite
of the petitioner has not completed three years of his
probation period and thereafter also the respondents have
further extended the probation period of the petitioner from
09.06.2021 to six months i.e, up to 08.12.2021 by passing
orders on 08.12.2023 i.e., two years thereafter and by that
time the petitioner has completed more than 5 years of
service and the respondents have retrospectively have
passed orders for extending the probation period up to
08.12.2021. The said extension of probation period by the
respondents after a lapse of more than three years in spite
of completion of period of three years of service is not valid
under law. While it being so, the respondents have issued
show cause notice to the petitioner for termination and
discharge of his duties on 19.11.2024 and passed the
impugned order on 26.05.2025 without any authority as
the petitioner’s services were deemed to be regularized as
per Rule 18 of the TS & SS Rules, 1996.
15
SK,J
14 . In Dayaram Dayal’s case (1 supra), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held in para 9 as under;
The other line of cases are those where while there is a provision
“9.
in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum
period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not
permissible to extend probation. A question as to its effect arose
before the Constitution Bench in State of Punjab v. Dharam
Singh [AIR 1968 SC 1210 : (1968) 3 SCR 1] . The relevant rule there
provided initially for a one-year probation and then for extension
thereof subject to a maximum of three years. The petitioner in that
case was on probation from 1-10-1957 for one year and was
continued beyond the extended period of three years (in all four
years) and terminated in 1963 without any departmental inquiry. A
Constitution Bench of this Court referred Sukhbans Singh [AIR 1962
SC 1711 : (1963) 1 SCR 416 : (1963) 1 LLJ 671] , G.S.
Ramaswamy [AIR 1966 SC 175 : (1970) 1 LLJ 649] and Akbar
Ali [AIR 1966 SC 1842 : (1967) 1 LLJ 708 : (1966) 3 SCR 821] cases
and distinguished the same as cases where the rules did not provide
for a maximum period of probation but that if the rule, as in the case
before them provided for a maximum, then that was an implication
that the officer was not in the position of a probationer after the
expiry of the maximum period. The presumption of his continuing as
a probationer was negatived by the fixation of a maximum time-limit
for the extension of probation. The termination after expiry of four
years, that is after the maximum period for which probation could be
extended, was held to be invalid. This view has been consistently
followed in Om Parkash Maurya v. U.P. Coop. Sugar Factories'
Federation [1986 Supp SCC 95 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 421 : (1986) 1 ATC
95] ; M.K. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank [1987 Supp SCC 643 :
1988 SCC (L&S) 347] and State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C.
Bhargav [(1987) 4 SCC 482 : 1987 SCC (L&S) 460 : (1987) 5 ATC
167] which are all cases in which a maximum period for extension of
probation was prescribed and termination after expiry of the said
period was held to be invalid inasmuch as the officer must be
deemed to have been confirmed”.
15. The above findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
are squarely apply to the instant case. In the instant case
also, the respondents have continued the petitioner in
service after probation period completed, but extended two
times retrospectively for six months up to December, 2021.
16
SK,J
In fact, the probation period of the petitioner for three years
was also completed on 19.11.2021 as his appointment is
dated 20.11.2018. Thereafter, the respondents have not
passed any order of extension of probation of petitioner and
without doing the same passed the impugned order treating
the petitioner as probationer and terminated and
discharged from the services and the same is arbitrary and
illegal.
The impugned order was passed by the respondent
16.
No.2 is under Rule 17 (a) (ii) of the Rules, 1996 and the
Rule-17 (a) (ii) of the Telangana State and Subordinate
Service Rules, 1996, is extracted as under;
RULE-17. SUSPENSION, TERMINATION OR EXTENSION OF
PROBATION .
xxx
(a) (i) xxxx
(ii) The appointing authority may, at any time, before or after the expiry
of the prescribed period of probation either extend by not more than one
year, whether on duty or otherwise, the period of probation of a
probationer, in case the probation has not been extended under sub-
rule (b) of this rule or terminate his probation and discharge him from
service after giving him one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu of
such notice, on account of unsatisfactory performance or progress
during training or unsatisfactory performance of duties or unsatisfactory
conduct or for any other sufficient reason to be recorded in writing.
17
SK,J
17. In the instant case, the petitioner probation was
extended two times for a period of six months each and
thereafter also the petitioner continued in Service, in view
of the same, the Rule 17 (a) (ii) of the Rules, 1996 not apply
to the facts of the case and the orders passed by the
respondent No.2 and consequential orders passed by the
respondent No.4 is also contrary to the Rule-17 (a) (ii) of the
Rules, 1996.
The Rule-18 of the Telangana State and
18.
Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 Rules is extracted as
under;
“18. DECLARATION OF PROBATION:
(a) At the end of the prescribed or extended period of probation, as
the case may be, the appointing authority shall consider whether the
probationer should be considered to have satisfactorily completed his
period of probation and after taking a decision in this regard, he shall
issue an order declaring the probationer to have satisfactorily
completed his probation.
(b)(i) The decision whether the probationer has satisfactorily
completed his probation or whether his probation should be
extended, shall be taken soon after the expiry of the prescribed
period of probation. If any lapses are noticed during the period of
probation by the appointing authority or a higher authority, such
lapses should be communicated to the probationer to rectify such
lapses. A decision whether a probationer could be considered to have
satisfactorily completed his probation or his probation should be
extended or discharged or suspended shall be taken within a period
of 8 weeks after the expiry of the prescribed period of probations.
18
SK,J
(ii) If no order as referred to in sub-rule (a) is issued within one year
from the date of expiry of the prescribed or extended period of
probation, the probationer shall, subject to other provisions of these
rules, be deemed to have completed satisfactorily his probation with
retrospective effect from the date of expiry of the prescribed or
extended period of probation and a formal order to that effect may be
issued for purpose of record. Provided that nothing in this sub-rule
shall apply to a probationer who has been communicated a
memorandum of charges during the prescribed or extended period of
probation or who has failed to acquire the special qualifications or to
pass the special tests, if any prescribed in the special rules or to
acquire such other qualifications, as may be declared by the State
Government or by the appointing authority with the approval of the
State Government, to be equivalent to the said special qualifications
or special tests, within the said period of probation”.
19. The above said Rules i.e.18 (b) (i) and (ii) clearly
mentioned that the authorities have to extend the probation
period or discharge from the service, then it has to be
treated deemed regularization of service. In the instant
case, the respondents have extended the probation period
of the petitioner and not discharged the services of the
petitioner after completion of the probation period and
continued more than 7 years of service/extension period.
The respondents treating the petitioner as probationer and
passed the impugned order and the same is arbitrary and
illegal and the said orders are liable to be set aside.
20 . In the impugned order, the respondents have also
specifically mentioned with regard to the involvement of
19
SK,J
petitioner in criminal case during his probation period and
the same is the subject matter of this Court. Based on the
involvement of the petitioner in criminal case, the
respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings and the
said proceedings were suspended by this Court by interim
orders dated 29.04.2022 in W.P.No.22292 of 2022. In spite
of pendency of the writ petition, now basing on the said
criminal case, the respondents have passed the impugned
order and the same is liable to be set aside.
21. With the above findings, the Writ Petition is allowed
by setting aside the impugned order in Proc.
Rc.No.984/E3-37/CHR/2018-25,R.O.No.284/2025, dated
26.05.2025 and Orders dated 31.05.2025 (02.06.2025) in
Proc.No.HCP/E/E1/0125/2020-25 D.O.No.6541, Order
dated 08.12.2023 in Proc.Rc.No.984/E3-37/CHR/2018-23,
R.O.782.2023 and Order dated 09.01.2024 in
Proc.No.HCP/E/E1/0125/2020-24, D.O.No.426 in
extending the probation of petitioner for 6 months
retrospectively and the petitioner is declared as approved
20
SK,J
probationer and the respondents are directed to continue
the services of the petitioner as approved probationer with
all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, in
this Writ Petition, shall stand closed.
_____________________
JUSTICE K.SARATH
Date: 30.04.2026
Note : LR Copy to be marked.
B/o.
trr