Date of reserved for orders : Date of pronouncement : 30.06.2026 Date of uploading : 01.07.2026 APHC010105682023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3573] TUESDAY, THE 30th DAY OF JUNE 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 5313/2023 Between: 1. K RAKESH BABU, S/O. LATE SEKHAR BABU, AGED ABOUT YEARS, OCC. JUNIOR ASSISTANT IN THE OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, KURNOOL. R/O. H.NO. 64/91B, S.NAGAPPA STREET, HEAD POST OFFICE, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI. 2. THE DISTRICT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE OFFICER, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU, KURNOOL. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P S P SURESH KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 2 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI WRIT PETITION NO: 5313/2023 This writ petition is filed challenging the order of termination passed in Rc.No.A1/273/2017 dated 05.01.2023 by the respondents, whereby the petitioner, who was working as Junior Assistant in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Special Enforcement Bureau, was discharged from duties and terminated from the Government Service under Rule 17 of AP State and Subordinate Service Rules, 1996 (for brevity ‘the Rules’). 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Junior Assistant on 18.02.2019 on compassionate grounds in the Prohibition and Excise Department, subject to certain conditions. The appointment was purely on temporary basis, and his services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons. It was further stipulated that he should acquire a degree qualification within a period of five years and shall qualify in the proficiency test in the office automation with the usage of the computer and associated software, conducted by the APPSC or recruiting agency, within a period of two years, as required under G.O.Ms.No.112, General Administration (Ser.A) Department, dated 18.08.2017. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a graduation certificate bearing passing No.139545, dated 27.01.2021, issued by the Shivaji University, Kolhapur. For verification of the said certificate, the respondents addressed a letter to the University vide Office Rc.No.A1/02/2022 dated 10.03.2022. 3 Pursuant thereto, the Director, Board of Examinations and Evaluation, Shivaji University, Kolhapur vide letter in SU/SFC/B.Sc.,No.00019, dated 08.08.2022, has informed that documents (Statement of Marks, Migration Certificate, and Provisional Certificate) are not issued by the Shivaji University, Kolhapur. The documents are verified with records and found to be fake. 4. Thereupon, a show cause notice dated 03.09.2022 was issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why his services should not to be terminated and dismissed from the government service besides filing a criminal case with the police for cheating the Appointing Authority by producing forged degree pass certificate. In response, the petitioner had submitted his explanation dated 20.09.2022 stating that it was not his intention to produce such fake certificates and the person who claimed himself as a correspondent of Shivaji University, working from Hyderabad, had deceived him with mala fide intentions, which he could not visualize, as a result of which, he has become a scapegoat and driven to mental agony for no fault of him. He further stated that the said correspondent representing the Shivaji University, Hyderabad, had admitted him into the correspondence course, duly collecting the required fees, and after completion of distance education course, sent the Provisional Certificate bearing passing No.139545, dated 27.01.2021, Migration Certificate No.08983083, dated 08.02.2021, and Statement of Marks. The petitioner asserted that all the certificates bore the emblem and seals of Shivaji University in the prescribed formats, which led him to believe that they were genuine. Except the said statement, he had not produced any evidence 4 with regard to his attending examinations, attending course, and other details regarding payment of fees, etc. 5. Thereafter, the respondent issued two more notices dated 12.10.2022 and 01.12.2022 calling upon the petitioner to furnish details with regard to the evidence of correspondence made with the university/college, proof of payment towards admission, registration and examinations fees, and details regarding attending of examinations etc. However, there was no explanation submitted by the petitioner to that effect. After taking into account, the explanation submitted by the petitioner dated 20.09.2022, the appointing authority vide proceedings dated 05.01.2023 passed the final order under Rule 17 of the Rules, whereby the petitioner was discharged from duties and his services were terminated from government service. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 7. The principal contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no charge memo was issued to the petitioner and no regular departmental enquiry was conducted in respect of the alleged misconduct, and the petitioner was simply terminated from service by imposing major penalty of removal from service. He further contended that, under Rule 20 of AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991, for imposing major penalty, it is required to conduct a regular departmental enquiry proceedings, as such, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. 5 8. Per contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order passed by the appointing authority is under Rule 17 of the Rules. As per the said Rule, the appointing authority during the period of probation, discharge the probationer from service for the reasons stipulated under the said rule. For the sake of convenience, Rule 17a(i) and (ii) is extracted hereunder: Rule - 17. Suspension, Termination or Extension of 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 either extend by not 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. 9. Learned Assistant Government Pleader further submitted that in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted fake certificates and a show cause notice was issued calling for explanation. But, no satisfactory explanation was submitted. Even thereafter, though two notices were issued to furnish the details regarding payment of fees, attending classes and examination, no explanation was given by the petitioner. Hence, the appointing authority, after considering the explanation submitted on 20.09.2022 and the material on record, and being satisfied that the petitioner had produced fake certificate, 6 passed a reasoned order under Rule 17 of the Rules, as such, the same cannot be interfered. However, under Rule 17(e) of the said Rules, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of preferring an appeal before the competent authority by filing an appropriate Appeal. 10. Having considered the submissions made on either side, without going into the merits of the case, and without recording any finding regarding the alleged issue of fake certificates that were produced before the appointing authority on which the services of the petitioner were terminated, this court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to provide an opportunity to the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing an appeal, as provided under Rule 17(e) of the Rules. Though period of limitation is prescribed under the said Rules, this court deems it appropriate to permit the petitioner to approach the competent authority by filing an appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On filing of such appeal, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders within a further period of four months from the date of filing of the appeal. 11. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. 7 As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________ JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI Date: 30.06.2026 Dvs Whether the order is: Speaking ☑ Reasoned ☑ Reportable ☑ Non-reportable 8 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI 90 WRIT PETITION NO: 5313/2023 Dt: 30.06.2026 Dvs