Dismissed

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. K. N.V.V. Satyanaryana Raju

Telangana HC7 Mar 2014WP/27069/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The two-judge High Court dismissed the Government's writ petition challenging an order of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had reinstated a Police Constable terminated for unsatisfactory performance during a long leave period, holding the order stigmatic and thus requiring an enquiry. The Court agreed with the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed; Applicant's reinstated probation declared under Rule 16(c).

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs K… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶2

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶3

WRIT PETITION No.27069 OF 2013

¶4

ORDER:- (per Hon’ble Sri Justice K.C.Bhanu)

¶5

This writ petition is filed seeking to issue writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order, dated 21.12.2012, in O.A.No.1337 of 2012 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad (for short, “the Tribunal”) and quash the same.

¶6

2. The petitioners herein are respondents, and respondent No.1 herein is the applicant, in the Original Application. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter, referred to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

¶7

3. The applicant belongs to BC Community and was appointed as Police Constable in Special Protection Force. After completion of nine months basic training, he was posted to Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (for short, “O.N.G.C.”), Rajahmundry with effect from 6.2.2008 and was placed on probation for a period of two years in a continuous period of three years. While he was discharging his duties, he fell sick due to Chronic Gastritis and also Hepatitis. Due to that illhealth, he went on medical leave by submitting medical certificates issued by the competent authority and the leave was sanctioned. However, the Assistant Commandant, A.P. Special Protection Force, O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry, issued charge memo, dated 16.8.2010, alleging that he extended leave for 187 days with effect from 1.6.2009 to 4.12.2009 in six spells by adopting irregular sick procedure. He submitted his explanation stating that he was not aware of the new procedure, which came into force, and following the old procedure alone, he applied for extension of leave. Unsatisfied with his explanation, the Assistant Commandant, through his proceedings,

¶8

dated 30.9.2010, imposed the punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal and the same is pending. While so, respondent No.3 passed order, dated 19.1.2011, discharging him from service with immediate effect on the ground that he had availed total 490 days of leave, which exceeds more than one year of duty period. The period during which the applicant was on leave cannot be treated as unauthorized absence as he applied for extension of leave from time to time and the same was granted. Due to severe illness, he could not attend the duty and applied for extension of leave from time to time. Hence, he filed the aforementioned Original Application before the Tribunal.

¶9

4. The Tribunal, upon considering the material on record, allowed the Original Application directing the respondents to reinstate the applicant into service forthwith with all consequential benefits. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the Government.

¶10

5. Learned Government Pleader for Services – I appearing for the petitioners/Government contended that as the service of the applicant is unsatisfactory, he was discharged from service under Rule 17(a)(ii) of A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for short, “the Rules”); that the termination simplicitor is not punitive, as he is not an approved probationer, and therefore, it does not require any enquiry and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order.

¶11

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant contended that the applicant was never absent from duty without sanction of leave, but he only failed to follow the new sick procedure that was introduced while he was on leave; that as the services of the applicant were terminated without conducting any departmental enquiry and even without issuing a show cause notice, the termination order is definitely stigmatic; that the Tribunal rightly passed the impugned order

¶12

and that order needs no interference by this Court and hence, prays to sustain the same.

¶13

7. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Constable in Special Protection Force and after completion of his basic training, he was posted as a Constable in O.N.G.C., Rajahmundry with effect from 6.2.2008 and was placed under probation for a period of two years in a continuous period of three years. It seems that while discharging his duties, he fell sick and was unable to discharge his duties. Therefore, he applied for leave in the first instance. Later, the sick leave was extended by six spells. As seen from the termination order, dated 19.1.2011, passed by the Commandant, it is clear that the applicant has availed 490 days of leave, which exceeds more than one year of duty, and as his overall performance is unsatisfactory during his probation period, his probation was terminated and he was discharged from service with immediate effect. Simply because he was absent for 490 days, it cannot be said that his work is unsatisfactory. It is not an unauthorized absence. He was sanctioned medical leave by the competent authority at the first instance. Therefore, when he was on medical leave, the question of assessing his performance as unsatisfactory or conduct does not arise. Initially, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for not following sick procedure and later, the termination order was passed on the self same ground discharging him from service. The termination order is stigmatic in nature. The termination order passed for unsatisfactory performance puts indelible stigma on the applicant affecting his future career. It cannot be said to be a simple discharge on account of unsatisfactory performance by the applicant. These things have been considered elaborately by the Tribunal. None of the findings is shown to be perverse or contrary to law. Basing on the material available on record, the Tribunal gave a finding that the termination order is a stigmatic order, which will come in the way of the applicant, and that in view of the stigmatic order, no enquiry was conducted before discharging him. Hence, the Tribunal rightly passed

¶14

the impugned order and that order needs no interference by this Court. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

¶15

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the probation of the applicant has to be declared by following Rule 16(c) of the Rules. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.

¶16

______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU

¶17

_______________ JUSTICE ANIS Date: 07.03.2014 AMD

¶18

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU AND

¶19

THE HON’BLE MRS JUSTICE ANIS

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.27069 OF 2013

¶21

DATE: 07.03.2014

¶22

AMD

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. K. N.V.V. Satyanaryana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, v. K. N.V.V. Satyanaryana Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. v.Jayalaxmi, D/o.Anji Reddy, Vs Government of A.P.

The Transport Commissioner, Vs Smt.C.Subhashini

M.Subba Rao, S/o. M.Venkanna Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Secretary

Commissioner and Director of School Education, Vs S. Durga Devi

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Vs P.V. Rami Reddy

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Vs a. Venkata Rao