SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 12761

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH
Sri Madgula Shiva Venkata Krishna – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 14377/2025



##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITIONNo.14377 OF 2025

DATED, THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 Between:

Madgula Shiva Venkata Krishna …Petitioner

AND The State of Telangana,Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Labour, Employment Training and Factories Department

and others …Respondents

ORDER:

The writ petition is filed questioning the

proceedings in No. A/209/2021 dated 01.03.2021, issued by respondent No. 3, whereby the petitioner was terminated with effect from 18.02.2021 and sought to reinstate him into service by setting aside the impugned

termination order.

2. Heard Sri GSRKV Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for

Services-II appearing for the respondents.

##PAGE2##

SK,J Page 2 of 15

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 14.09.2020 on compassionate grounds after the death of his father, who worked as an Office Subordinate. While he was working in the office of respondent No. 3, one Datla Sainath lodged a complaint with the ACB officials on 08.02.2021 against the petitioner and two others. Based on the said complaint, the ACB officials laid a trap against the Assistant Labour Officer (for brevity ‘ALO’) Kodad and the petitioner herein and the ACB Officials recovered an

amount of Rs.5,000/- from the ALO.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though there was an allegation of demanding bribe by involving the petitioner, there was no acceptance of any amount by the petitioner and the amount of Rs.5,000/- was recovered from the ALO. Despite the said fact, respondent No. 3 issued the

##PAGE3##

SK,J Page 3 of 15

impugned termination order on 01.03.2021 in contravention of Part IV, Rule 9 read with Explanation

(viii) of the TSCS (CCA) Rules, 1991.

5. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, being a probationer, is entitled to certain protections and his services cannot be terminated arbitrarily. Though the amount was recovered by the ACB officials from the ALO, the respondent authorities have terminated the services of the petitioner during his probation period in the impugned proceedings, without conducting a regular enquiry and without providing a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Further, the criminal case registered against them is still pending on the file of the I-Additional Special Judge-cum-Additional

Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Nampally.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that even in probationary period, the employee cannot

##PAGE4##

SK,J Page 4 of 15

be terminated without affording an opportunity of hearing if the termination is founded on allegations of misconduct, which cast a stigma on the employee. The impugned termination order is stigmatic in nature, as it is founded on allegations of misconduct and moral turpitude. It is ex facie punitive and has been issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing or conducting an enquiry into the alleged misconduct and requested to allow the writ petition by

setting aside the impugned termination order.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his

contentions:

1. Depti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Sateyandanath Bose National centre for Basic Sciences and others 1

2. State of Uttar Pradesh and another Vs. Kaushal Kishroe Shukla

1 (1999) 3 SCC 60.

2 (1991) 1 SCC 691

##PAGE5##

SK,J Page 5 of 15

8. The learned Government Pleader for Services-II, basing on the counter filed by respondent No. 3, submits that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds and the petitioner is liable to be terminated at any time without prior notice and without

assigning any reasons.

9. The learned Government Pleader further submits that, as on the date of termination, the petitioner had completed only five months of service. He had also failed to pass the prescribed tests and his character and antecedents

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top