Telangana High Court
Konda Janaiah vs The State Of Telangana on 30 April, 2026
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 : Yes/No
newspapers may be allowed to see
the Judgment ?
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.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits 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.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the following Judgments;
1. Dayaram Dayal vs. State of M.P. 1
2. Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation 2
3. R. Venkata Ramudu vs. State of Andhra Pradesh 3
4. Om Parkash Maurya vs. U.P.Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow 4 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.
8. The learned Government Pleader further submits 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 instant case, during the 2nd 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 respondents have 2nd 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;
"9. The other line of cases are those where while there is a provision 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.
16. The impugned order was passed by the respondent 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.
18. The Rule-18 of the Telangana State and 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