IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.22204, 22208 and 22563 of 2008 WRIT PETITION NO : 22204 of 2008 Between: A. Obulesu, S/o. Veeranna, Lakkireddipally Circle, Kadapa District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy Inspector General of Police Kurnool Range, Kurnool. 2 The Director General & Inspector of Police, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings C.No.C1/702/2007/ R.O.O.No.634/2008 dt. 18.9.2008, issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violating the principles of natural justice and alos violating Rule 23 of A.P., State & Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 6 (B) of A.P. Police (Civil) Service Rules and set aside the same including order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. NO. 7686/2008 and batch dt. 25.9.2008 and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioner to continue as Inspector of Police in issuing appropriate posting order as Inspector of Police and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR SERVICES I AND WRIT PETITION NO : 22208 of 2008 Between: C. Bhaskar Reddy, S/o. Late C. Venugopala Reddy, of Police, Kurnool, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy Inspector General of Police Kurnool Range, Kurnool. 2 The Director General & Inspector of Police, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings C.No.C1/702/2007/ R.O.O.No.633/2008 dt. 18.9.2008, issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal unconstitutional violating Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violating the principles of natural justice and also violating Rule 23 of A.P., State & Subordinate Service Rules and Rule 6 (B) of A.P. Police (Civil) Service Rules and set aside the same including order of the Hon'ble Tribunal in O.A. NO. 7679/2008 and batch dt. 25.9.2008 and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioner to continue as Inspector of Police in issuing appropriate posting order as Inspector of Police and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I AND WRIT PETITION NO : 22563 of 2008 Between: O.Ramachandra Reddy S/o.late Ranga Reddy Rayachoti Rural Circle, Kadapa District ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Dy.Inspector of Police, Kurnool Range,Kurnool 2 The Director General & Inspector General of Police Government of Andhra Pradesh,Hyderabad 3 State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Principal Secretary Home Department, Secretariat,Hyderabad .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Aﬃdavit ﬁled herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus or otherwise declaring the proceedings C.No.C1/702/2007/ ROO.No.635/2008 dated 18.9.2008 issued by the 1st respondent as arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional violating Article 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India apart from violating the principles of natural justice and also violating Rule 23 of AP State & Subordinate Service Rules, and Rule 6 (B) of AP Police (Civil ) Service Rules and set aside the same including order of the Hon`ble Tribunal in OA.No.7688/2008 and batch dated 25.9.2008 and issue consequential directions directing the respondents to forthwith allow the petitioner to continue as Inspector of Police in issuing appropriate posting order as Inspector of Police and pass appropriate orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.V.KRISHNAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SERVICES I The Court made the following : HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION Nos.22204, 22208 and 22563 of 2008 COMMON ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) Writ Petition Nos.22204, 22208 and 22563 of 2008 have been ﬁled seeking to set aside the common order, 25.09.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.No.7686, 7679 and 7688 of 2008, respectively, wherein and whereby the applications ﬁled by the petitioners were disposed of, with a direction that the respondents shall accommodate the applicants in the vacancies available after ﬁlling up with the qualiﬁed and eligible persons, if any vacancies exist thereafter. The facts of the case, in brief, necessary for disposal of the writ petitions may be stated as under: Initially, the petitioners were working as Sub-Inspectors of Police (Civil). Subsequently, they were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) and they were placed under probation for a period of one year by the proceedings, dated 08.04.2008. While so, the ﬁrst respondent issued proceedings, dated 18.09.2008, reverting the petitioners to their substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) with immediate eﬀect on the ground that they have not put in six years of service in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, as per Rule 6 (b) of A.P. Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 (for short ‘the Service Rules’), to be promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and they were promoted inadvertently. As such, they were liable to be reverted to their substantive post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Challenging the order, dated 18.09.2008, the aforesaid O.As were ﬁled by the petitioners and the Tribunal disposed of the said O.As. Hence, the present writ petitions. The Tribunal passed the impugned order disposing the said O.As with an observation that the applicants will complete six years of service, which is the eligibility criteria as per Rule 6 (b) of the Service Rules, by October or November, 2008 and directed that the respondents shall accommodate the petitioners in the vacancies available after ﬁlling with up the qualiﬁed and eligible persons, if any vacancies exist thereafter. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the Tribunal has not considered all the grounds raised and has not referred to the legal pleas raised, but mechanically disposed of the O.As, as such, the impugned order is illegal and untenable. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have invited a counter from the Government and should have considered all the points objectively and adjudicated the same on merits. In this connection, he has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No.16962 (CAT) of 2000, in between Rajnish Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India, wherein it is held as under: “On the basis of the above discussion, we hold that while deciding applications filed under the 1985 Act, the Tribunals are under a legal duty to record cogent reasons disclosing application of mind to the issues of fact and law and such applications cannot be decided summarily unless the Tribunal concerned comes to the ﬁrm conclusion that the claim made by the applicant is frivolous or vexatious.” He further contended that earlier proceedings were given on 10.10.2007 promoting the petitioners to the post of Inspector of Police and the posting order was issued on 14.10.2007 and all of them were regularized in the cadre of Inspector of Police; in such an event, reverting the petitioners to their substantive posts on the ground of non-completion of six years of service is not justiﬁable and seeks to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Services-I, appearing for the respondents, submitted that Rule 6 (b) of the Service Rules mandates that one must have put in six years of service as Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil), but the petitioners herein have not put in six years of service in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police, and by mistake promotion orders were passed and that by itself does not confer any right on them to claim seniority in that cadre. Apart from that, he contended that the panel for the year for 2006-07 was prepared and the names of the eligible candidates were placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police for approval and that since there are some eligible persons who are seniors to the petitioners, the petitioners, as a matter of fact, cannot claim that they are entitled to be promoted as Inspector of Police and hence, seeks to sustain the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. Apropos the contentions of learned counsel appearing on either side, it is to be considered as to whether the reversion order passed by the respondents as was upheld by the Tribunal is sustainable or not. In this context, it is expedient to refer to Rule 6 (b) of the Service Rules, which reads as under: “No person shall be eligible for appointment by transfer of promotion unless he is an approved probationer and has put in service in the category from which promotion or transfer is made as specified below: Not less than six years for Sub-Inspector of Police and for Inspector of Police to be promoted as Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively.” So, this is the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police or Deputy Superintendent of Police, as the case may be. In the reversion order, it was mentioned that the promotion orders were passed inadvertently, though the petitioners have not put in 6 years of service in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Before passing the said reversion order, a show cause notice, dated 01.09.2008, was issued to the petitioners calling upon them to submit their explanation as to why they should not be reverted from the rank of Inspector of Police (Civil) to Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) within seven days time, failing which it will be presumed that there is no explanation. Rule 16 (b) and Rule 17(a) of the A.P. State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 reads as under: Rule 16(b): “A person appointed to a service, class or category, in accordance with the rules, otherwise than by direct recruitment, shall, if he is required to be on probation in such service class, or category, be deemed to have commenced his probation in such service, class or category from the date from which he has been continuously on duty in such service, class or category for a period of not less than 60 days from the date of joining duty after having been appointed to such service, class or category on a regular basis in accordance with rules.” Rule 17(a): Suspension, termination or extension probation: (a)(i) The appointing authority may, at any time, before the expiry of the prescribed period of probation, suspend the probation of a probationer and discharge him from service for want of vacancy. (ii) The appointing authority may, at any time, before or after the expiry of the prescribed period of probation of a probationer either extent by nor 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.” Therefore, it is clear that if a person’s probation is commenced in a particular cadre, he has to be discharged from the said post and then be suspended, after giving notice. Section 19 (3) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 reads as under: “On receipt of an application under Sub-section (1), the Tribunal shall, if satisﬁed of such inquiry as it may deem necessary, that the application is a ﬁt case for adjudication or trial by it, admit such application; but where the Tribunal is not so satisﬁed, it may summarily reject the application after recording its reasons.” Here, it is pertinent to note that pursuant to the interim order, dated 29.07.2008, passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.6054 of 2008 ﬁled by the petitioners, the ﬁrst respondent issued proceedings dated 08.08.2008 cancelling the reversion order issued in respect of them and they were directed to continue in the post of Inspector of Police. Subsequently, the reversion order, dated 18.09.2008, was passed reverting the petitioners to their substantive post of Sub- Inspector of Police, aggrieved by which, the present O.As were ﬁled by the petitioners. However, in view of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, the interim order passed in O.A.No.6054 of 2008 became infructuous. When once the petitioners were regularized in the cadre of Inspector of Police, only on the ground of unsatisfactory performance etc and after giving one month notice, as provided under Rule 17 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, their probation in a particular cadre has to be suspended or terminated. This procedure is not followed in the case on hand. Whereas the order reverting the petitioners was passed without suspending the probation of the petitioners and discharging them from the post of the Inspector of Police, the notice, dated 01.09.2008, issued prior to passing the order of reversion dated 18.09.2008, provides only seven days to show cause, which is not at all permissible under law. Apart from that, in the reversion order, no reasons were given with regard to the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioners nor any other suﬃcient reason was shown. Nonetheless they have only stated that since they have not completed six years of service in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police, they are ineligible for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Civil) and that inadvertently and by mistake, the promotion orders were passed. Learned Government Pleader for Services-I contended that after the reversion order, dated 18.09.2008, no promotions were eﬀected, the eligible candidates, who are also seniors to the petitioners, who have put in service of 6 years, as postulated under Rule 6 (b) of the Rules, were considered for the post of Inspector of Police and their names were placed before the Deputy Inspector General of Police, and as such, the petitioners cannot claim that they are entitled to be promoted as Inspector of Police since their earlier promotions were purely adhoc and that, by itself does not confer any right on them and the authority is justified in issuing the reversion order. However, when the Court questioned him with regard to giving any promotion orders to those persons, he submitted that as of date promotion orders were not given to them, as per the instructions received by him. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side. Since the petitioners were earlier promoted to the post of Inspector of Police and subsequently their services were regularized in that cadre and their probation commenced, under Rule 16 (b) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, when once a person’s probation is commenced, he has to be discharged from probation under Rule 17 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules by giving one month notice on grounds such as unsatisfactory performance of duties etc as speciﬁed therein. Rule 10 (e) of the State and Subordinate Service Rules, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case, once the services of the petitioners as Inspectors of Police were regularized, though they were initially promoted under Rule-10 of the State and Subordinate Service Rules. Even in the proceedings, dated 08.04.2008, wherein and whereby the services of the petitioners were regularized, it was informed that they may be reverted to their substantive post at any time before declaration of probation with one month notice on account of unsatisfactory performance of duties or unsatisfactory conduct or any other reasons. But, in the show cause notice, dated 01.09.2008, issued prior to passing the reversion order, dated 18.09.2008, only seven days time is provided to the petitioners, which is contrary to Rule 17 of the Rules and also the order passed by the competent authority on 08.04.2008, which clearly postulates giving of one moth notice in case of reversion of a person on account of unsatisfactory performance of the duties etc. Further more, in the reversion order there was no mention about the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioners in the cadre of Inspector of Police or any other prescribed reason. In the instant case, the services of the petitioners were regularized in the cadre of Inspector of Police and in such an event, the respondents, without discharging their probation, passed orders reverting them to their substantive posts, which is not permissible under law. The Tribunal has mechanically without considering all the aforesaid aspects passed the impugned order upholding the reversion order, which is not sustainable. In view of the foregoing reasons and also having regard to the facts and circumstances and the chequered events of this case, the writ petitions are liable to be allowed. All the writ petitions are allowed, setting aside the order, dated 25.09.2008, passed by the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, in O.A.Nos.7679, 7686 and 7688 of 2008, wherein the proceedings Vide C.No.C1/702/2007/R.O.O.Nos.633 to 635/2008, dated 18.09.2008, issued by the ﬁrst respondent-The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool Range, Kurnool, were upheld. The said O.As are allowed and the impugned order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, dated 18.09.2008, are set aside. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED _____________________________ JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD 23rd October 2008 DR ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1 The Dy Inspector General of Police Kurnool Range, Kurnool. 2 The Director General & Inspector of Police, Government of A.P., Hyderabad. 3 State of A.P, rep.by its Principal Secretary, Home Department Secretariat, Hyderabad 4 2 CCs to Government Pleader for Services-I, High Court Buildings, Hyderabad. (OUT). 5 2CD copies