Juwansinh Ratansinh Kher vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 13426 Guj

     C/SCA/14640/2020                            JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2021



             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

               R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14640 of 2020

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 ?

================================================================
                        JUWANSINH RATANSINH KHER
                                  Versus
                            STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR. JIT P PATEL(6994) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR SAHIL B TRIVEDI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE NOT RECD BACK(3) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE SERVED(4) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
================================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA

                             Date : 03/09/2021
                             ORAL JUDGMENT

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

respondent-State.

2. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Jit Patel 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

C/SCA/14640/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2021

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 Circle Officer, Class-III,

Morbi, vide order dated 30.12.2016 on five years contractual period as

per the policy of the State Government dated 28.03.2016. 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 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 17.09.2020 on the ground of alleged demand of illegal gratification

of Rs.1,000/-. 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 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 AGP Mr.Sahil Trivedi has submitted that the impugned

C/SCA/14640/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2021

order does not require to be set aside, since the petitioner has engaged in

demanded Rs.1,000/- 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 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.

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 17.09.2020, whereby it is specifically stated that

the service of the petitioners are immediately terminated with

retrospective effect from 17.09.2020 for the reason that the petitioner has

allegedly demanded amount of Rs.1,000/- 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

C/SCA/14640/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 03/09/2021

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 17.09.2020 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

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