Gujarat High Court
Rakesh Haribhai Chavda vs State Of Gujarat on 11 February, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/2765/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2765 of 2021
==========================================================
RAKESH HARIBHAI CHAVDA
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR M R MOLAVI(3362) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3,4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 11/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. With the consent of the learned advocate for the
respective parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing.
2. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai
learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the
respondents.
3. Heard Mr.M.R.Molavi learned advocate for the
petitioner.
4. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 16.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.3, by
C/SCA/2765/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022
which, the services of the petitioner had been
terminated on account of an FIR being registered
under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
5. Mr.Molavi learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that though he was an employee appointed
on a fixed tenure on a fixed pay, the order of
termination is stigmatic.
6. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP would vehemently
object to the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and submit that an
employee being appointed on a fixed term basis
would have no right to continue on the post. Merely
because his termination has been pursuant to an FIR
registered against him, that itself would not make
the order of termination stigmatic.
7. Considering the submissions made and in view of the
fact that the question of termination of such
employees, has been held to be stigmatic when the
same is as a result of lodging of an FIR in
accordance with the decision of this Court dated
C/SCA/2765/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022
07.05.2018 rendered in Special Civil Application
No.15773 of 2018, wherein, this Court has held as
under:
"6. When the impugned order is considered in
light of the above principles and the position of
law, it could be well discerned that the the
event of filing of F.I.R. against the petitioner
was treated as base and respondents
misconduct it was that the for concluded
readily petitioner accepting the had bribe.
Upon this foundation, the termination was
effected. It was on the ground of misconduct
and therefore the stigmatic order, which could
not have been passed without a full scale
inquiry.
6.1 An advocate attempt for compliance of was
the made in respondents natural justice vain
that as the by learned there was notice was
issued to the petitioner. A mere notice would
not suffice. No inquiry was held, no charge was
framed against the petitioner. Without issuing
the charge and without putting the petitioner
to knowledge of the allegation which he was to
precisely answer, the principles of natural
justice could not be said to be followed when
the order was founded on misconduct. As held
by the Division Bench of this Court in the
judgment above, it necessitated a full scale
inquiry against the petitioner after issuing
show-cause notice and by framing appropriate
charge, conducting it in accordance with the
natural justice.
6.2 The petitioner was a fixed term employee
who was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle
Inspector, Class-III as per appointment order
dated 17th May, 2013 for a period of five years.
The impugned order came to be passed on 30
C/SCA/2765/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022
th March, 2015. Therefore, the relief which
would ensue for the petitioner shall be upto
making up good the total period of five years of
employment.
7. As a consequence of above discussion and
reasons, the impugned order dated 30 th
March, 2015 passed by respondent No.2 -
Commissioner of Transport is hereby set aside.
Respondents are further directed to reinstate
Assistant the Motor continuity of salary/wages
for petitioner Vehicle service the on original
Inspector, and Class-III with interregnum post
as with payment well of of as the consequential
benefits which may arise, as if the order of
termination reinstatement of the was never
petitioner passed. directed as The above shall
be for the period upto making of the total
original period fixed for his employment as per
order of appointment. The resultant monetary
benefits to be paid to the petitioner within a
period of eight weeks from the date of receipt
of the present order."
8. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated
16.10.2020 passed by the respondent no.3 is set
aside. The respondents are further directed to
reinstate the petitioner on the original post on which
he was working prior to the order of termination.
Since the petitioner was employed on a fixed wage
salary basis, he will not be entitled to back-wages.
The respondents are not precluded from proceeding
C/SCA/2765/2021 ORDER DATED: 11/02/2022
against the petitioner in accordance with law. Rule
is made absolute in the above terms.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
ANKIT SHAH
