Gujarat High Court
Director (Mgnrega) vs Shaktisinh Ghanshyamsinh Jadeja on 1 December, 2022
Bench: A.J.Desai
C/LPA/1455/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1455 of 2022
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14382 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1455 of 2022
==========================================================
DIRECTOR (MGNREGA)
Versus
SHAKTISINH GHANSHYAMSINH JADEJA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PREMAL R JOSHI(1327) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR MEET THAKKAR, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 4
MR AS ASTHAVADI(3698) for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
for the Respondent(s) No. 5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 01/12/2022
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.J.DESAI)
1. By way of present appeal under Clause - 15 of the Letter
Patent, present appellant - original respondent No.3 i.e.
Director, MGNREGA has challenged the oral order dated
26.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ
petition, by which, the action of the appellant of terminating
the services of the respondents herein, by order dated
04.09.2021, is quashed and set aside treating the order as
stigmatic and passed without following due procedure of law
and without holding any departmental inquiry.
C/LPA/1455/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2022
2. The respondent No.1 herein was working as Assistant
Programmer, respondent No. 2 herein was working as
Account Assistant and respondent No. 3 herein was working
as MIS Coordinator with the appellant herein and their
services were extended time and again. It also appears from
the record that a writ petition being Special Civil Application
No. 13621 of 2014 was filed by the respondents herein
before this Court. On 01.07.2016, the said petition was
allowed, by which, following directions were issued by
learned Single Judge, which reads as under:
"52.1 The prayer of the petitioners to regularize their
contractual services and make them
permanent on the establishment is rejected.
Limited immunity that is made available to the
petitioners is by allowing them to continue on their
contractual employment and not to be
replaced by other set of contractual employees on
ad-hocism. The petitioners shall be continued in
the existing cadre as long as the said Scheme
continues, but purely on contractual basis and such
employment shall be co-terminus with the
scheme, subject to evaluation of their performance,
service and disciplinary rules as may be made
applicable to them. The respondent - State shall
insist on periodical upgradation of knowledge,
improvisation of technical skill and overall
preparedness on the subject, so also on
computerization."
C/LPA/1455/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2022
3. By order dated 04.09.2021, the appellant, by observing that
all the respondents have committed financial illegalities,
terminated their services. The said decision was challenged
by filing captioned writ petition by the respondents herein.
Learned Single Judge, after hearing all the parties, allowed
the petition. Hence, this appeal.
4. Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate appearing for the
appellant, would submit that an FIR was also registered
against respondents and having found that they have
committed financial illegalities by using their posts, their
services came to be terminated. He would submit that there
are no vacancies available so that the respondents can be
reinstated. He, therefore, would submit that the appeal may
be allowed and stay may be granted.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Asthawadi, learned advocate for the
respondents herein, supported the decision of learned Single
Judge. He would submit that the order passed by the
concerned authority, which has been quashed and set aside
by learned Single Judge is stigmatic in nature, and therefore,
the concerned authority ought to have followed the
procedure for holding departmental inquiry. He would
submit that learned Single Judge, by relying upon the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has quashed and set
aside the termination order and directed the concerned
authority to reinstate the respondents herein. He would
submit that learned Single Judge also directed the appellant to
C/LPA/1455/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2022
take legal action in accordance with law. By relying upon the
judgment and order dated 17.02.2021 passed by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.
270 of 2021 and judgment and order dated 24.07.2020
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019, he would
submit that the appeal may be dismissed.
6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties. Perused
the order dated 04.09.2021 passed by the appellant as well as
the order passed by learned Single Judge. It is an undisputed
fact that appropriate procedure has not been followed by the
appellant before terminating the respondents herein. As far as
the submissions made by the appellant that they were on
contractual services, and therefore, their services could be
terminated without following due procedure is not sustained
in view of the judgment and order dated 24.07.2020 passed
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019. The observations
made in Para - 8 and 9 of the decision dated 24.07.2020
passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 as as under.
"8. The bone of contention of appellants - State
authorities is that since the original petitioners are
employed on a contract basis and fixed pay, the
Department is not under an obligation to conduct a
detailed full-scale departmental inquiry. Now, this
contention has been the subject matter of scrutiny on
earlier occasion before a Coordinate Bench in Letters
Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018 between Vadodara
Municipal Corporation v. Manishbhai Nayanbhai
C/LPA/1455/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2022
Modh, decided on 20.2.2018. The relevant
observations contained in the said decision are
reflecting in Para.4.1 which are also based upon the
decision of the Apex Court and in consonance with
the provision of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline
and Appeal) Rules, 1971. The said observations have
also been considered at length by the learned Single
Judge which are reflecting in Para. 5.7 of the
impugned order.
9. Yet in another decision again by the Division Bench
of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal
No.841 of 2019 between Rahul Aydanbhai Vak v.
State of Gujarat, decided on 15.4.2019, in which the
same issue has been considered. The relevant
discussion of the Division Bench in the said case is
contained in Para.7, 8 and 9, in which in no
uncertain terms, almost in similar set of
circumstance, the Division Bench has clearly opined
that full-scale departmental inquiry will have to be
undertaken, if initiation of action on the basis of
unsatisfactory work, gross negligence or indiscipline
or any act which may tantamount to be stigmatic and
as such, consistently this view has been clearly
opined by the Division Bench."
7. Learned Single Judge, by relying upon the decision dated
24.07.2020 passed by of the Division bench of his Court in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019, has passed the
impugned order. It is also pertinent to note that learned
C/LPA/1455/2022 ORDER DATED: 01/12/2022
Single Judge has observed that present appellant would not
be precluded from proceeding against the respondents herein
in accordance with law. In view of the above, we do not find
any merits in this appeal. Hence, present appeal is dismissed.
8. In view of the order passed in Letters Patent Appeal,
connected civil application does not survive. Accordingly,
civil application stands disposed of.
(A.J.DESAI, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
*F.S.KAZI.....
