Gujarat High Court
Kalpeshkumar Ramubhai Ahir vs State Of Gujarat on 6 October, 2021
Bench: A.S. Supehia
C/SCA/17423/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17423 of 2019
==========================================================
KALPESHKUMAR RAMUBHAI AHIR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
HIMANSHI R BALODI(8919) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR BHAVIK J PANDYA(5002) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
MR ROHAN SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
Date : 06/10/2021
ORAL ORDER
1. Rule. Learned AGP for the Respondent No.1 and Learned
advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the respondent Nos.2 and 3
waive service of notice of rule for the respective
respondents.
2. At the outset, learned advocate appearing for the
petitioner has submitted that the issue is squarely
covered by various judgments of the Division Bench as
well as the Coordinate Benches of this Court. He has
placed reliance on the judgment dated 24.07.2020 passed
in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019, order dated
16.10.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.16975
of 2018 and the order dated 02.09.2020 passed in Special
Civil Application No.7743 of 2020. He has submitted that
the petitioner was appointed as a Talati-cum-Mantri,
Class-III, Palavadi, Taluka Dolvan, Dist.Tapi vide order
dated 18.07.2014 on contract basis. He has submitted that
the State Government has issued Resolutions dated
20.10.2015 and 28.03.2016 by which certain conditions of
service for the employees appointed on a fixed pay have
been provided for. It is submitted that as per condition
No.14A in Schedule-I to the Government Resolution dated
C/SCA/17423/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
28.03.2016 it is contemplated that principles of natural
justice and conducting of inquiry in case of misconduct
have to be followed before terminating the services of an
ad hoc employee. He has submitted that the service of the
petitioner was terminated by the order dated 07.06.2016 on
the ground of alleged demand of illegal gratification of
Rs.800/-. He has submitted that the order has been passed,
without holding any regular departmental inquiry and since
the order is stigmatic, as per the settled proposition of
law the respondents are required to hold a regular
departmental inquiry proving the misconduct. Thus, he has
submitted that the issue is squarely covered by various
judgments of this Court as noted hereinabove.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw has submitted that the
impugned order does not require to be set aside, since the
petitioner has engaged in demand of Rs.800/- as an illegal
gratification. He has submitted that even if the impugned
order is set aside and the regular departmental inquiry is
held, the petitioner at the most be reinstated in service
for the purpose of holding departmental inquiry without
grant of the consequential benefits.
4. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the documents as pointed out
by them.
5. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute.
The only issue, which requires consideration, is whether
the termination of the petitioner from service is stigmatic
or not. The Court has perused the impugned order dated
07.06.2016, whereby it is specifically stated that the
C/SCA/17423/2019 ORDER DATED: 06/10/2021
service of the petitioner is immediately terminated with
retrospective effect from 07.06.2016 for the reason that
the petitioner has allegedly demanded amount of Rs.800/- as
illegal gratification. Thus, the impugned order is
indubitably premised on misconduct. It is no more res
integra that if the order of termination is stigmatic and
is premised on the misconduct alleged against the employee,
the employer is required to hold a regular departmental
proceedings proving such misconduct and any shortcut
adopted of terminating the services of such employee can be
said to be illegal. The Coordinate Benches as well as the
Division Benches have set aside the termination orders of
such employees, who are employed on contractual basis. I
may not reiterate the views expressed by the Division Bench
as the law on the issue is already settled.
6. Under the circumstances and in light of the aforesaid
undisputed fact, the impugned order 07.06.2016 passed by
the respondent authority is hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner on his
original post. The said proceedings shall be completed
within a period of three (03) months from the date of
receipt of writ of the order of this Court. It is clarified
that the reinstatement is only for the purpose of holding
the departmental inquiry. The grant of consequential
benefits would depend on the ultimate outcome of the
departmental proceedings.
7. The present writ petition is allowed. Rule is made
absolute to the aforesaid extent.
Sd/- .
(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)
NVMEWADA
