Gujarat High Court
Dipeshbhai Mohanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17449 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DIPESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 25/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati waives service of Rule on behalf of State.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India whereby, challenging the award passed by learned labour court, Valsad in Reference (LCV) No.62 of 2017 dated 01.01.2022 whereby, the reference filed by the present petitioner challenging the Page 1 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined termination order dated 02.02.2010 was upheld and the relief of reinstatement with benefits were declined.
3. The gist of the case is that petitioner was appointed as a Forest Guard (Van Rakshak Sahayak) vide appointment order dated 01.09.2009 after following the recruitment process. The appointment of the petitioner was made on fix term wages and he was drawing Rs.2500/- per month. He was deputed at the Office of the Range Forest Officer, Vansada-East Bit Guard Khata-Amba. The appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis and on 06.01.2010, on receiving the secret information by the Office of the Range Forest Officer, Vansada, the petitioner, co-employees i.e. Dharmesh Patel and Uttambhai Patel were present at the Naka and waiting for the Truck bearing registration No.MH-18-M-9324 carrying out forest woods illegally, the petitioner had tried to stop the said truck, however, the truck driver did not stop and on following the said truck the petitioner succeeded in chasing the truck alongwith the Driver at Palgabhan village. The truck Driver stepped out from the truck and ran away from the place, however, the petitioner and the colleagues remained Page 2 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined unsuccessful in chasing the truck driver though they had followed to catch him. The petitioner and his colleagues had alleged that in connivance of the Higher Officer, the transportation of woods were made illegally from the forest and thereafter, on inspection being carried out by the Deputy Forest Conservator, Valsad, false charges were claimed and the petitioner was terminated vide order dated 02.02.2010.
4. In the termination order allegations were made that petitioner's work was not satisfactory and was found negligent in his duty and therefore, as per the condition 12 of the appointment order, services were put to an end to of the petitioner. As without holding the departmental inquiry, order of termination is passed, therefore, the same was challenged before the learned labour court by filing the reference. On considering the submissions made by both the parties, learned reference court has rejected the reference and upheld the order of termination which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sindhi for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Bhati for the State.
Page 3 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr.Sindhi submits that the impugned termination order is punitive in nature and though the petitioner was a contractual employee, but when the order which is of stigmatic is passed, then the principle of natural justice is required to be followed. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Sindhi that neither any show cause notice was issued, nor any departmental inquiry was held and without affording the opportunity of hearing to defend the charge which was mentioned in the termination order, the services were put an end to. Learned advocate Mr.Sindhi submits that petitioner was made a scape goat as he made an allegation against the Superior Officer for illegal transportation of woods from the forest and therefore, also the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement alongwith all consequential benefits.
7. As against the same, learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the reference was filed after the delay of seven years challenging the order of termination dated 02.02.2010 and the petitioner who is a contractual employee was terminated as per the conditions mentioned in the Page 4 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined appointment order. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that the appointment was made on 01.09.2001 and his services were put an end to on 02.02.2010 and petitioner has worked only for a period of 123 days during the above mentioned period and therefore, also petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the reference, as the petitioner did not fulfill the condition prescribed under section 25(b) of the ID Act. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that after considering the evidence placed by the employee, learned labour court has found that there is no breach of provision of section 25(f) of the ID Act and therefore, no error is committed by the learned labour court in dismissing the reference. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati further submits that instead of challenging the termination order before the Higher Authority, straightaway the reference was filed and therefore, also the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed in the reference.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by both the parties, it emerges from the record that the appointment of the petitioner was made on 01.09.2009 on the post of Forest Guard. On referring the appointment order, it Page 5 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined appears that the appointment was on contractual basis, a fixed wage and as per clause 12 of the appointment order, if the work is found unsatisfactory or any misconduct is committed then the services can be put an end to without issuing any notices. On referring the termination order which is dated 02.02.2010, it appears that the said order was passed alleging the misconduct on the petitioner. It was stated in the order that, though truck was chased, the petitioner and co-employees remained unsuccessful in catching the driver and therefore, they were negligent in their duty. 8.1. It is true that the petitioners were appointed on contractual basis and they are not entitled for continuity of service on completion of the contract. However, if the services are put an end to by alleging misconduct, then in the opinion of this Court the principle of natural justice is required to be followed. It is undisputed fact that the impugned termination is stigmatic in nature. It is also not in dispute that the said termination order was passed without holding any departmental inquiry and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Page 6 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined 8.2. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Mangal Singh Versus The Chairman, National Research Development Corportion And Others reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Del 2345, wherein, it is held that the termination was not a simplicitor termination, but stigmatic and punitive in character and therefore, dismissal without affording the opportunity of presenting the case before the disciplinary authority is illegal and violating the protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
8.3. This Court is of the view that as soon as it is shown that the order purports to caste an aspiration on a temporary servant, it becomes idle to suggest that the order is simple order of discharge. The test in those cases is, does the order caste aspiration or attest stigma to the employees when it purports to discharge him. As the impugned termination which is stigmatic in nature was passed without following the principle of natural justice and without holding a departmental inquiry, same is required to be set aside and the impugned reference awarded against the petitioner is required to Page 7 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined be interfered with. In that background the ultimate relief which would be entitled by the petitioner is also required to be discussed herein.
8.4. To decide what relief petitioner is entitled for, this Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Telecom District Manager And Others vs Keshab Deb , reported in 2008 (8) SCC 402 wherein, it is held that even if the provision of section 25(f) of the ID Act has not been complied with , the employees who are contractual employees are required to be paid the just compensation. 8.5. Applying the same ratio in the present case, it emerges from the record that the petitioner has worked for 123 days only and he was a contractual employee on fixed term as well as there is a delay of seven years in filing the reference. In that background, this Court is of the view that instead of granting the relief of reinstatement, if the lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/- is awarded, then ends of justice would meet.
9. Resultantly, this petition being Special Civil Application No.17449 of 2022 is partly allowed.
10. The respondent is directed to pay the lump sum Page 8 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025 undefined compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement as well as back wages towards full and final settlement to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
11. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J) NIVYA A. NAIR Page 9 of 9 Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 17 03:21:30 IST 2025