Rudrapati Ramu Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, Rep. its Principal Secretaiy, Animal Husbandary Department, Secretariat Buildings, Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District.

¶12

The District Collector, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶13

The Joint Director, Animal Plusbandaiy Department, SPSR Nellore District, Nellore.

¶14

The Deputy Director, Animal Husbandary Department, Kavali, SPSR Nellore District.

¶15

The Assistant Director, Animal Husbandaiy Department, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District.

¶16

...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ or order, direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, in not declaring the probation of the services of the petitioner as Animal Husbandry Assistant vide Proc.Roc.No.208/B2/2023, dated 07.03.2023 on the ground that one criminal case is pending in FIR No.212/2019 on the

¶17

2

¶18

file of Chinna Bazar PS., SPSR Nellore District as arbitraiy, illegal and contrary to the rulings of this Honble Court as well as Apex Court of India and consequently direct the respondents to declare the probation of the petitioner as Animal Husbandly Assistant by disposing of the representation dated 09.03.2023 and pass

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶20

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to declare the probation of the petitioner to the post of AHA by disposing of the representation dated 09.03.2023, pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶21

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to allow the additional affidavit pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioner: PAMARTHI KAMESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Village and Ward Secretariats The Court made the following order:

¶24

3

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO: 1715 of 2024

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

The Writ Petition is filed questioning the inaction of the Respondents in not declaring the probation of the Petitioner as Animal Husbandry Assistant vide Proceedings in RoC No.208/B2/2023, dated 07.03.2023, on the ground that a criminal case in FIR No.212 of 2019 of Chinna Bazar Police Station, Nellore District, is pending against him.

¶29

The Respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit. However, learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record the written instructions of the District Animal Husbandry Officer, Nellore District, which, inter alia , state as follows:

¶30

“WRITTEN INSTRUCTIONS ON W.P. No. 1715 OF 2024 FILED BY RUDRAPATI RAMU, S/O.KRISHNAIAH, NELLORE PALEM VILLAGE, ATMAKUR MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT

¶31

1. It is respectfully submitted that the Petitioner Sri Rudrapati Ramu, S/o.Krishnalah was appointed as Animal Husbandry Assistant and has been working in Animal Husbandry Department.

¶32

2. It is further submitted that, during the process of police verification of the antecedents of the petitioner, an adverse report was furnished by the Police under Sl. No. 04. A

¶33

4

¶34

copy of the said antecedent verification report is enclosed herewith for kind perusal,

¶35

3. It is submitted that the probation of the petitioner has not been declared. The petitioner was involved as an accused in C.C. No. 739 of 2020, arising out of the case registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chinnabazar Police Station, Nellore. The petitioner was shown as A-15 in the said case. Copy of the same is enclosed herewith for kind perusal.

¶36

4. In view of the pendency of the criminal case and the adverse antecedent verification report, the probation of the petitioner was not declared by the competent authority. The non-declaration of probation was thus not on account of a formal order specifically extending the period of probation, but on account of the aforesaid circumstances relating to the petitioner's antecedents and the pending criminal proceedings.

¶37

5. It is further submitted that, in the light of the above facts and circumstances, particularly the pendency of the criminal case and the adverse antecedent verification report, the question of treating the petitioner as having satisfactorily completed his probation by deemed declaration under the applicable service rules may not arise.

¶38

Therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the petitioner's probation has not been declared and the same was not declared in view of his involvement as an accused in C.C. No.739 of 2020 and the adverse antecedent verification report furnished by the Police.”

¶39

5

¶40

From the aforesaid instructions, it appears that the probation of the Petitioner has not been declared on the ground that he is an accused in C.C. No.739 of 2020, arising out of a case registered by the Police of Chinna Bazar Police Station, Nellore, wherein he has been arrayed as Accused No.15. It is further stated that, in view of the pendency of the criminal case and the adverse report regarding his antecedents, the competent authority not declared his probation. Nondeclaration of probation, according to the Respondents, is not pursuant to any specific order extending the period of probation, but is on account of the aforesaid circumstances relating to the antecedents of the Petitioner and the pendency of the criminal proceedings.

¶41

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the probation of the Petitioner was neither extended nor he was discharged from service upon completion of the prescribed period of probation. Therefore, having regard to the provisions governing declaration of probation, the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of deemed declaration of probation upon completion of the prescribed period, as stipulated in the order of appointment.

¶42

Learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents placed reliance on Rule 12(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, which prescribes the

¶43

“ Qualifications For Direct Recruitment ”. In particular, reliance is

¶44

6

¶45

placed on Rule 12(ii), which requires that “ his character and antecedents are such as to qualify him for such service ”. Learned Assistant Government Pleader has also placed reliance on Rule 17(a)(ii), which reads as under:

¶46

“(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.”

¶47

Placing reliance upon the aforesaid provisions, learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that, in view of the adverse report regarding the antecedents of the Petitioner and his involvement in the criminal case, the Petitioner is not entitled to declaration of probation during the pendency of the criminal proceedings.

¶48

Rule 18 of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, deals with “ Declaration of Probation ”. Rule 18(b)(ii), which is relevant for the present case, reads as under:

¶49

7

¶50

“(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 :

¶51

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.”

¶52

In the instant case, the Petitioner was appointed pursuant to the Notification, dated 24.07.2019. As per the terms of his appointment, the period of probation is two years from the date of his appointment. Admittedly, no specific order extending the period of probation under Rule 17(a)(ii) or otherwise has been passed by the competent authority. Likewise, no order discharging the Petitioner from service on the ground of unsatisfactory completion of probation has been passed.

¶53

8

¶54

In such circumstances, Rule 18(b)(ii) assumes significance. Where the prescribed period of probation has expired and there is no order extending the period of probation or discharging the probationer from service, the Rule provides for deemed declaration of probation from the date of expiry of the prescribed period. Therefore, in the absence of any order extending the period of probation or terminating the services of the Petitioner, the Respondents cannot indefinitely withhold the benefit of declaration of probation solely on the ground of pendency of the criminal proceedings.

¶55

The pendency of a criminal case, by itself, does not obliterate the statutory consequence flowing from Rule 18(b)(ii), particularly when the competent authority has not passed any order extending the period of probation within the prescribed period. The question of the antecedents of the Petitioner and the effect of the pending criminal proceedings may, however, be considered by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable Rules and law, depending upon the outcome of such proceedings or any subsequent adverse material that may arise.

¶56

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the specific provision contained in Rule 18(b)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioner is entitled to the benefit of deemed declaration of

¶57

9

¶58

probation upon expiry of the prescribed period of two years from the date of his joining service.

¶59

Accordingly, the Respondent authorities are directed to issue appropriate proceedings formally declaring the probation of the Petitioner in the post of Animal Husbandry Assistant, with effect from the date on which he completed the prescribed period of probation, in accordance with Rule 18(b)(ii) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1996, subject to the applicable service conditions.

¶60

It is, however, made clear that such declaration of probation shall not preclude the Respondents from taking any action against the Petitioner, if otherwise permissible under law, on the basis of any adverse material or the outcome of the criminal proceedings referred to above, strictly in accordance with the applicable Rules and after following due process of law.

¶61