THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2266 OF 2000 DATED: 07-02-2008 D.Narsing Rao … Petitioner versus 1.The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Government- Legal Affairs, Law Department, A.P. Secretariat, Hyderabad. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU WRIT PETITION No.2266 OF 2000 ORAL ORDER: (per the HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue writ of certiorari, calling for the records, pertaining to the order, dated 08.10.1999, passed by a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, (for brevity “the Tribunal”), dismissing the O.A.No.6594 of 1996, and to declare the said order as arbitrary, illegal, without jurisdiction, void ab initio, and in violation of Articles 14, 21 and 311 (2) of the Constitution of India and consequently hold that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service as Attender with all consequential benefits, such as arrears of salary, seniority and further promotion. 3. Petitioner is the applicant and the respondent is the respondent, in the O.A., before the Tribunal. 4. The facts appear to be, the petitioner was temporarily appointed as an Attender in the respondent department on compassionate grounds, through G.O.Ms.No.75, dated 01.08.1991; that he joined duty on 02.08.1991 and his services were regularized with effect from 02.08.1991; that through G.O.Ms.No.11, dated 15.02.1993, he was kept under probation; that, during that period, the petitioner has availed leave on several occasions, without prior approval of the appointing authority; that in a span of six months, he availed leave in this fashion for eleven times; that keeping in view of his habitual absence, which is contrary to the Rules, his probation was extended for a period of one year i.e., upto 20.09.1994; that for repeating the same indiscipline attitude i.e., for irregular attendance, a penalty of censure was imposed on him and also warned him to be careful in future, vide order, dated 26.06.1994; that again, his probation was extended for a further period of one year i.e., upto 20.09.1995, vide order, dated 08.02.1996; that, even during the year 1996, when he was under probation for third time, the same unauthorized absence was continued on more than one occasion and eventually, it was found that from 03.06.1996 till the date of issuance of the proceedings of the respondent, which were impugned before the Tribunal, dated 20.09.1996, through G.O.Ms.No.183, he was found to be absent from duty. 5. In consequence thereof, the competent authority, exercising its jurisdiction conferred under Rule 25 (c) of the Andhra Pradesh State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1962 (for brevity “the Service Rules”) (old Rules), as then applicable, (present Rule being Rule 17), terminated the probation of the petitioner and discharged him from service by giving one month’s pay in lieu of notice. 6. A perusal of Rule 25 (c) of the Service Rules would reveal that, absolutely, there is no controversy insofar as the powers vested with the competent authority, under the said provision. 7. It is the prime contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that when the petitioner was on probation, for his unauthorized absence, the department ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings and taken disciplinary action for the said irregularity. Since, the said procedure had not been adopted, according to the learned counsel, the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside. 8. But, in view of the abovementioned Rule position, which is in unambiguous terms, we are of the considered view that the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. In case of acute indiscipline on the part of the employee, particularly when he was under probation, the competent authority has power to invoke the jurisdiction conferred under Rule 25 (c) of the Service Rules. 10. Keeping these aspects in view, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal had rightly dismissed the O.A., and we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 11. For the foregoing, the writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------- JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA --------------------------- JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 7TH February 2008 HSD