JUDGMENT:

(Per Hon(cid:146)ble Sri Justice Abhinand Kumar Shavili)

This Writ Appeal is filed by the appellant aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.22223 of 2020, dated 20.01.2023.

2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for Services-II appearing for the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant was intially appointed as Assistant Engineer with the respondents on 26.05.2016 and while he was discharging his duties, he was falsely implicated in Anti Corruption Bureau case in F.I.R.No.2/RCT-NLJ/2018, dated 06.04.2018, ACB Police Station, Nalgonda, on the alleged ground that he was demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.1.25 lakhs and was detained for more than 48 hours and that should necessitate the desciplinary authority to place the appellant under suspension in terms of Rule 8 (2)

(a) of T.S. Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 (for brevity, (cid:145)the Rules, 1991(cid:146)) with effect from 07.04.2018. While so, the disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice to the appellant vide SCN No.RC/ENC/H2/18051123/2018, dated 08.04.2020, as to why the services of the appellant should not be terminated in terms of Rule 17(a) (ii) and Rule 10(e) of the Telangana State & Subordinate Rules, 1996, (for brevity, (cid:145)the Rules, 1996(cid:146)) as admittedly the appellant was on probation. The appellant has submitted a detailed explanation on 11.05.2020 denying the allegations levelled against him in the show cause notice and has specifically pleaded until and unless the allegation is proved before the competent Criminal Court, the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority/appointing authority cannot be held to be sustained.

4. The appointing authority/disciplinary authority has referred the case to the Government and the Government vide Government Memo dated 19.03.2020 has directed the appointing authority/disciplinary authority to terminate the services of the appellant immediately by following the due procedure and in pursuance thereto, the appointing authority/disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice on 08.04.2020 and the appellant has submitted an explanation to the said show cause notice and again the appointing authority has referred the case to the Government and the Government vide Memo dated 29.07.2020 has directed the appointing authority to terminate the services of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has further contended that a perusal of Rule 17(a)(II) and Rule 10(e) of the Rules, 1996 makes it abundantly clear that the appointing authority must independently come to the conclusion by applying its mind as to whether the services of a probationer can be terminated for the reasons to be recorded in writing that the services of the probationer are not satisfactory and moreover, the termination orders were passed by the appointing authority by casting a stigma on the appellant i.e., vide proceedings dated 05.09.2020. But, whenever a stigma is casted upon an employee being a probationer or a regular employee, the respondents are bound to conduct a detailed enquiry after giving an opportunity to the employee to prove his innocence.

5. Admittedly, in the present case, the termination order is stigmatic and the same was passed without giving any opportunity to the appellant to defend his case. Moreover, the termination orders are also being passed at the instance of State Government and a perusal of rule17(a)(ii) and Rule 10(e) of the Rules, 1996 clearly states that the appointing authority must come to the conclusion when the services of the probationer are not satisfactory. But in the instant case, the appointing authority has not independently considered the case of the appellant and the Government has already come to a conclusion to terminate the services of the appellant even before the issuance of show cause notice and the respondents could not have terminated the