Hyderabad : Telangana high court has upheld a single judge’s order reinstating a 2018 batch sub-inspector, ruling that the police department failed to establish any misconduct or unsatisfactory performance that warranted his removal from service.
A division bench comprising acting Chief Justice P Sam Koshy and Justice Narsing Rao Nandikonda dismissed an appeal filed by the police department against the April 2026 order that set aside the termination of SI Konda Janaiah and declared him an approved probationer. Janaiah was appointed as a sub-inspector of police (civil) on Nov 20, 2018, and was placed on probation for two years on duty within a continuous period of three years. In Nov 2020, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, resulting in a minor punishment of postponement of one increment without cumulative effect. His probation was subsequently extended on two occasions, in July 2021 and Dec 2023. Authorities later served him a show-cause notice in Nov 2024 before terminating his services in May 2025. The single judge held that Janaiah’s maximum probation period concluded in Nov 2021 and that he was deemed to have been confirmed in service under the applicable rules.
The bench also took note of the fact that, despite departmental proceedings having been stayed by the high court earlier, the authorities proceeded to take the “extreme step” of discontinuing him from service. Janaiah was terminated from service while serving as an SI at Jubilee Hills. The case against Janaiah stems from a domestic violence and dowry harassment complaint filed by his wife at Godavarikhani-I police station. The court noted that both extension orders were issued after the relevant probation periods had already expired. The finding was based on a Supreme Court judgement dealing with similar service matters.
He and his parents were named in the case, which remains pending before the trial court at Godavarikhani. The single judge had earlier set aside the termination order.
The judges noted that the sole reason for withholding confirmation of his probation was his implication in a matrimonial dispute following a criminal complaint lodged by his wife. The court pointed out that the criminal case was still pending and had not been adjudicated.