Gujarat High Court
Maheshkumar Nathubhai Chaudhari vs State Of Gujarat on 14 February, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12451 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV Sd/-
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the No
judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? No
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the No
interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made
thereunder ?
================================================================
MAHESHKUMAR NATHUBHAI CHAUDHARI
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
================================================================
Appearance:
MR JEET PATEL, for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 14/02/2022
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Kurven Desai,
learned Assistant Government Pleader waives
service of notice of Rule for the respondents.
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
2. With the consent of the learned advocates for the
respective parties, the petition is taken up for final
hearing today.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties
through Video Conferencing. Perused the record.
4. The short issue involved in this petition is whether
the order of termination dated 18.4.2015, by which,
the petitioner who was working as a contractual
employee as a District Sports Officer, has been
terminated on the ground of having caught red
handed of accepting a bribe is stigmatic. Based on
the FIR lodged against the petitioner under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, the services have been
terminated.
5. A submission of Mr. Jeet Patel is that the issue is
covered by the decision of this Court, which he has
relied and placed alongwith the petition namely;
SCA No.15773 of 2018 dated 7.5.2019 and an order
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
of even date in SCA No.19885 of 2018.
5.1. He would further submit that in LPA No.1596 of
2019 dated 24.7.2020, the Division Bench has also
held that even if a contractual employee is sought to
be terminated on the ground of an FIR, his
termination has to be in accordance with law. The
Division Bench of this court on 24.07.2020 in paras 8
and 9 held 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 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.
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
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 Nos.7, 8 & 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."
5.3 What is evident from reading the contents
of the decision is that if initiation of action is
based on an unsatisfactory work, gross
negligence or indiscipline, it tantamounts to
being stigmatic and unless and until a full scale
departmental inquiry is held, irrespective of
whether the employee is a regular employee or
a contractual employee, the result has to be the
same. It has to be noted that before the
Division Bench it was the stand of the State
that an employee who is appointed on
contractual basis need not be terminated after
holding a full fledged inquiry. It was in the
background of this objection of the government
that the Division Bench held thus.
"11. From the overall material on record
and in consideration of aforesaid
observations, we see no distinguishable
material to take a different view or deviate
from the same. Since almost in similar
issue, the proposition is to the effect that
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
whenever any charge is levelled and
action is found to be stigmatic, a full-scale
departmental inquiry deserves to be
undertaken irrespective of whether the
delinquent was a regular employee or
contractual employee on a fixed salary. As
a result of this, we are of the considered
opinion that since undisputedly by a brief
procedure, an action is initiated against
the respondents herein while dismissing
their services, said action itself is found to
be not on the touchstone of aforesaid
proposition of law. As a result of this, no
error is committed by the learned Single
Judge. Having perused these material, we
are not satisfied with the submissions
made by learned counsel for the
appellants in both these appeals."
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Kurven
Desai for the State rely on the affidavit and submit
that the petitioner is grossly barred by delay,
inasmuch as, the order dated 18.4.2015 has been
challenged after a period of four years. What is
indicated of the facts make it clear that the
petitioner was appointed on the fixed pay for a fixed
term of five years as a Sports District Officer - Class
III by an order dated 17.9.2013. He was involved in
a criminal offence and an FIR being CR No.4 of 2015
for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
(d), 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has
been registered. Based on this FIR, the petitioner's
services have been terminated.
7. The affidavit further indicates that the petitioner had
made representation to the respondents on
4.6.2015, 29.7.2015, 8.2.2016, 15.2.2016,
17.3.2016, 28.11.2016 and 30.11.2018, pursuant to
which the respondents have submitted a proposal to
the Finance Department. Admittedly, therefore, the
case of the petitioner is at large before the
department. For the delay, appropriate orders can
be passed.
8. Accordingly, the petition is partly allowed. The order
dated 18.4.2015 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The petitioner shall be reinstated as a contractual
employee on the same terms and conditions without
any consequential benefits. The same shall be done
within four weeks from today.
C/SCA/12451/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 14/02/2022
9. The respondents will have a liberty to take recourse
to appropriate proceedings of holding an inquiry into
the allegations made against the petitioner. Such
inquiry, in compliance with principles of natural
justice, shall be completed within four weeks from
the date of the petitioner being reinstated. This
direction is issued in the facts of this case, inasmuch
as, the termination is of the year 2015 and there are
allegations under Prevention of Corruption Act, for
which, the Court does not make any observations on
merits.
10. Rule is made absolute to that extent. Direct Service
is permitted. No costs.
Sd/-
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
VATSAL S. KOTECHA
