Jaydeepsinh Kirtibhadrasinh ... vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 13313 Guj

      C/SCA/6062/2019                              JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2021



              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6062 of 2019

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA                                   Sd/-
================================================================
1      Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
       to see the judgment ?                                            NO

2      To be referred to the Reporter or not ?                          NO

3      Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
       of the judgment ?                                                NO

4      Whether this case involves a substantial question
       of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution              NO
       of India or any order made thereunder ?

================================================================
                        JAYDEEPSINH KIRTIBHADRASINH JADEJA
                                       Versus
                                STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR P P MAJMUDAR(5284) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR DM DEVNANI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
================================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                       Date : 02/09/2021
                      ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Learned AGP waives service of notice of rule for the

respondent-State.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar 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

C/SCA/6062/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2021

02.09.2020 passed in Special Civil Application No.7743 of 2020. He has

submitted that the petitioner was appointed as a Vanpal Sahayak, Class-

III vide order dated 16.08.2013 on five years contractual period as per the

policy of the State Government dated 04.06.2009. He has submitted that

the service of the petitioner was terminated by the order dated 31.01.2019

on the ground of alleged demand of illegal gratification of Rs.40,000/-.

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 have inquired 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 AGP Mr.D.M.Devnani has submitted that the impugned

order does not require to be set aside, as the petitioner was to be engaged

in demanding of Rs.40,000/- 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 would be free 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.

C/SCA/6062/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2021

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 31.01.2019, whereby it is specifically stated that

the service of the petitioners are immediately terminated with

retrospective effect from 31.10.2018 for the reason that the petitioner has

allegedly demanded amount of Rs.40,000/- 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 period of 5 years. 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 31.01.2019 passed by the respondent authority is

hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner

on his original post. It is clarified that the reinstatement is only for the

purpose of holding the departmental inquiry. The grant of consequential

C/SCA/6062/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 02/09/2021

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) ABHISHEK