THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHAKAR WRIT PETITION No.15498 of 2006 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the judgment dated 04.07.2005 passed in O.A.No.7288 of 2003 on the file of Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad. The petitioner herein was directly selected as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1995. After completing his training period, he was allotted to Hyderabad City as a Probationary Sub-Inspector of Police. By proceedings dated 16.02.1998, the Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad terminated the petitioner, under Rule 17(a) of the A.P.State and Subordinate Rules, 1996 (for short ‘the Rules’), by paying him one month’s salary on the ground he was involved in Crime No.24 of 1998 for the offences punishable under Sections 384 and 341 IPC, along with two other police constables, for planning and extorting huge unaccounted money carried by some people. The proceedings further reveal that the petitioner was served with a memo on 26.05.1997 to clear-off 48 files pending under investigation, but he failed to clear-off the pendency. The proceedings would also further reveal that many memos were issued alleging that he was in the habit of using unparliamentary language and exhibiting high handedness with the general public, that he was careless towards his duty by leaving the police station when a dharna was going on in front of the police station and that he was in the habit of stopping 2/4 wheelers at isolated places and extorting money from them. Challenging the proceedings dated 16.02.1998, the petitioner filed O.A. before the Tribunal. By the impugned order dated 04.07.2005, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. confirming the order of termination. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Tribunal filed the present Writ Petition. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the termination order was passed without holding any enquiry amounting to not only violation of principles of natural justice but casting stigma on the petitioner and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is illegal and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on V.P.Ahuja v. State of Punjab[1], D.P.Banerjee v. S.N.Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta[2] and Kumari Amina Khatun v. Union of India[3]. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I submits that this is a case where the petitioner’s performance during probation was not satisfactory and there was no question of stigma nor was it a case where certain findings were arrived at which could be the foundation of the order and, if on account of unsatisfactory performance, a probation could not be terminated, it would lead to serious problems for any employer. A perusal of the order of the Tribunal would reveal that the termination of the petitioner was effected during his probation. The reasons for his termination are as follows: a. Unsatisfactory work of not clearing of pendency. b. Using unparliamentary language and exhibiting highhandedness on the general public. c. Shirking of responsibility. d. Trying to extract money from 2/4 wheelers. Before going into the rival contentions, it is necessary to extract Rule 17(a) of the Rules, which reads as follows: (ii) The appointing authority may, at any time before the expiry of the prescribed period of probation, suspend the probation of the probationer and discharge him from service for want of vacancy. (iii) 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 petitioner, in case the probation has not been extended under sub-rule (b) of this Rule or terminate the 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. (iv) The appointing authority may, at any time, before the expiry period of probation, post the probationer under another officer in order to make sure that the previous report on his performance or conduct by a superior officer is not a biased one. Rule 17(ii) of the Rules provides that the services of probationer can be terminated 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. It is evident, from the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, that they have complied with the rule of giving one month’s pay on account of the petitioner’s unsatisfactory performance. Further, the petitioner has received innumerable memos for his irregularities and misconduct. The decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the case on hand since the misconduct mentioned therein was absenteeism from service. However, it cannot be lost sight of the fact that the petitioner’s termination was on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of duties and unsatisfactory conduct. The petitioner, being a personnel of disciplined force, exhibited misconduct in a wider magnitude. Hence, the order of termination passed in the present case is a fallout of his unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in which he conducted himself. Such decision cannot be stigmatic or punitive. This is case of termination of service simpliciter and not a case of stigmatic termination and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J K.G.SHAKAR,J Dt:14.06.2011 usd [1] 2000(2) SLR 1 [2] AIR 1999 SC 983 [3] 2000(1) SLR 187