Gujarat High Court
Deputy District Development ... vs Virendrasinh Halubha Vaghela on 26 April, 2023
Bench: Hasmukh D. Suthar
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 531 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3275 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 2 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 531 of 2023
==========================================================
DEPUTY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
Versus
VIRENDRASINH HALUBHA VAGHELA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SIRAJ R GORI(2298) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 26/04/2023
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent against the order dated 19.09.2022
rendered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.3275 of 2021, whereby the learned
Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the
present respondent No.1 - original petitioner.
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Siraj Gori for the
appellant - original respondent No.2
3. Learned advocate Mr. Gori appearing for the
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
appellant submitted that the original petitioner was
appointed as Assistant Talati-cum-Mantri, Class-III
by an order dated 12.02.2015. He was appointed on
contractual basis on a fixed pay for a period of 5
years. Thereafter, FIR being C.R.No.I-1 of 2018 came
to be registered against him for the alleged offence
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. The said FIR was
registered on 12.02.2018. Because of the registration
of the said FIR, the present appellant issued a show
cause notice to the original petitioner to which he
submitted his reply. After considering the reply of
the petitioner, his services were terminated on
24.05.2018. It is submitted that against the said
order of termination of the services of the
petitioner, he preferred caption petition before this
Court. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order
dated 19.09.2022, allowed the petition filed by the
petitioner and thereby quashed and set aside the
order of termination. The learned Single Judge
further directed the present appellant to reinstate
the petitioner on same terms and condition on which
he was initially appointed. The appellant has,
therefore, filed the present appeal.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Gori for the appellant
would mainly submit that the services of the
petitioner came to be terminated pursuant to the
terms and conditions of the order of appointment.
Learned advocate, at this stage, has referred the
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
order of appointment of the petitioner, copy of which
is placed on record at page 17 of the compilation.
Learned advocate has, more particularly, placed
reliance upon condition Nos. 16 and 27 of the order
of appointment. Learned advocate Mr. Gori has also
referred page 68 of the compilation. It is submitted
that against the order of termination, the petitioner
can file appeal before the higher authority i.e the
State Government and in the present case, the
petitioner has already preferred appeal before the
Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the said
appeal the petitioner filed captioned petition and
without waiting for the decision of the said appeal,
the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned
order and therefore the impugned order be set aside.
5. It is further submitted that serious allegations
are levelled against the petitioner in the FIR, which
has been filed against him. Learned advocate, at this
stage, has also contended that the learned Single
Judge has placed reliance upon the order dated
15.04.2019 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of
2019 as well as order passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1596 of 2019. It is submitted that the facts of
the present case are different and therefore learned
Single Judge ought not to have placed reliance upon
the aforesaid orders while allowing the petition
filed by the petitioner. Learned advocate, therefore,
urged that the impugned order be set aside.
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by
learned advocate Mr. Gori appearing for the
appellant. We have also perused the material placed
on record. It would emerge from the record that the
petitioner was appointed on 12.02.2015 on the post of
Assistant Talati-cum-Mantri, Class-III. He was
appointed on contractual basis on a fixed pay for a
period of five years. Thereafter, FIR came to be
registered on 12.02.2018 against him for the offence
punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act. It is not in
dispute that though the present appellant issued a
show cause notice before terminating the services of
the petitioner, a full-fledged departmental inquiry
was not conducted by the appellant. It is pertinent
to note at this stage that while passing the order of
termination, the present appellant has specifically
observed that there is misconduct committed by the
petitioner and his service is not found satisfactory
and therefore as per the terms and conditions of the
appointment order, his service is terminated.
7. This Court has recently passed an order on
18.04.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.525 of 2023.
In the said case also, the FIR came to be registered
against the concerned petitioner under the provisions
of Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code and
because of the registration of the FIR, the services
of the concerned petitioner came to be terminated. In
the said case, this Court has dismissed the appeal
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
filed by the State Government and thereby confirmed
the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
8. In similar case of State of Gujarat v.
Manojkumar Vajabhai Parmar, this Court passed an
order on 17.03.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.300
of 2023. In the said case, FIR came to be registered
against the concerned petitioner Revenue Talati Class
- III under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act and because of the registration of the
FIR against him, his services came to be terminated
without conducting full-fledged departmental inquiry
and this Court confirmed the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal filed
by the State Government. In both the aforesaid
orders, the Division Bench of this Court has
considered the decision rendered in Letters Patent
Appeal No.1596 of 2019 in the case of State of
Gujarat v. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor as well as the
decision dated 15.04.2019 rendered in Letters Patent
Appeal No.841 of 2019 in the case of State of Gujarat
v. Rahul Aydanbhai Vank.
9. In the present case also, it is not in dispute
that before terminating the services of the
petitioner full-fledged departmental inquiry was not
conducted and the impugned order passed by the
appellant, whereby, the services of the petitioner
came to be terminated, is a stigmatic order and
therefore we are of the view that full-fledged
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
departmental inquiry was required to be conducted
before terminating the services of the petitioner.
10. It is pertinent to note at this stage that
learned advocate Mr. Gori has referred the impugned
order, wherein, it has been observed that against the
order passed by the appellant, petitioner can make a
representation before the Secretary, Panchayat, Rural
Housing and Rural Development Department. It is
submitted that petitioner had made representation
before the said authority. However, during the
pendency of the said representation, before any
decision is taken on the said representation, the
petition was filed and learned Single Judge has
entertained the same and therefore on this ground the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge be
set aside.
11. We are of the view that the aforesaid submission
is misconceived. It is true that there is reference
with regard to making of a representation before the
State Government, however, there is no statutory
remedy provided for filing an appeal before the
Appellate Authority under the terms and conditions of
the order of appointment. Further, when the appellant
had not conducted full-fledged departmental inquiry
and thereby terminated the services of the
petitioner, we are of the view that learned Single
Judge has not committed any error while allowing the
petition filed by the original petitioner.
C/LPA/531/2023 ORDER DATED: 26/04/2023
12. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded
by the learned Single Judge while passing the
impugned judgment and we are of the view that learned
Single Judge has not committed any error while
passing the impugned order and therefore no
interference is required in the present appeal.
Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. However, it is
pertinent to note at this stage that learned Single
Judge has already reserved liberty to the present
appellant - original respondent No.2 to conduct
departmental inquiry against the original petitioner
in accordance with law.
13. In view of dismissal of the appeal, civil
application does not survive for adjudication and
accordingly stands disposed of.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
LAVKUMAR J JANI
