WP/1933/2008 of Smt.D.Sujatha Vs A.P.S.R.T.C on 31 December 2010

ORDER:

The petitioner, a Deputy Chief Accounts Officer in the service ofthe Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC),challenges its proceedings dated 03.01.2006 which stood confirmed inappeal under order dated 26.12.2007.

The petitioner entered the service of the APSRTC as anAccounts Officer in January, 1997. She was promoted as a DeputyChief Accounts Officer under proceedings dated 31.08.2004 and puton probation. As per Regulation 20 of the APSRTC RecruitmentRegulations, 1966 she had to complete one year for declaration of herprobation. Regulation 21(4) of the said Regulations prescribes that inthe event of necessity arising for extending the probation, it had to bedone before the expiry of the period of probation, duly putting theincumbent on notice as to the lapses which required such extension.However, in the present case, it was only under proceedings dated03.01.2006, well after the completion of the one year probation period,that the APSRTC informed the petitioner that her probation wasextended by a period of six months due to her unsatisfactoryperformance. Aggrieved thereby, she preferred an appeal which wasrejected under order dated 26.12.2007.

In its first counter affidavit, the APSRTC stated that theextension of probation would have no impact on the petitioner’s futurepromotions and that it would have no effect on her seniority. It furtherstated that the same would not be treated as a punishment in terms of its Regulations. Clarifying this position further, the APSRTC filed anadditional counter affidavit stating that the declaration of thepetitioner’s probation would have the effect of her being promoted fromthe initial date on which she assumed higher responsibility and thatthe said date would be taken into consideration for all purposes. Itreiterated that the extension of probation for a period of six monthswould have no impact on her future promotions, would not affect herseniority and would not be treated as a punishment.

As pointed out by the Supreme Court in CHAITANYAPRAKASH v. H.OMKARAPPA[[1]], the facts of each case woulddetermine as to whether a label of ‘unsatisfactory performance’ wouldbe stigmatic or not. In the present case, as the APSRTC did notchoose to abide by its own Regulations with regard to extension ofprobation within the stipulated period and in the light of its unequivocalstand in the counter affidavits, it is clear that the remark of‘unsatisfactory performance’ in the proceedings dated 03.01.2006would have no stigmatic effect. The same would also not be ahindrance to the petitioner’s career interests. The stand of theAPSRTC is therefore taken on record. In the light thereof, theapprehensions voiced by the petitioner in the present case are withoutbasis.

The Writ Petition is accordingly closed. There shall be no orderas to costs.

_______ DECEMBER, 2010.

VGSR

____________________

SANJAY KUMAR, J.

[1] (2010) 2 SCC 623