Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Jalpa Nathubhai Goriya on 27 April, 2023
Bench: Hasmukh D. Suthar
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 541 of 2023
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17145 of 2019
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 541 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
JALPA NATHUBHAI GORIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR KURVEN DESAI, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Appellant(s) No. 1,2
MR. JIT P PATEL(6994) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR
Date : 27/04/2023
COMMON ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
1. This appeal is filed under Section 15 of the
Letters Patent by the appellants-original
respondents, challenging the judgment and order,
Dated: 16.02.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge
in Special Civil Application No. 17145 of 2019,
whereby, the petition filed by the original
petitioner-opponent, herein, came to be allowed.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the
opponent came to be appointed on the post of Sub-
Registrar, Grade-II, Class-III, vide order dated
17.12.2013, on fixed term basis by appellant No.2.
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
2.1 It appears that in the year 2018, an FIR,
being, C.R. No. 15/2018, came to be registered
against the Opponent with ACB Police Station,
Gandhinagar, for the offence punishable under
Sections 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
(in brief, 'the Act').
2.2 Pursuant to the registration of the aforesaid
FIR, the services of the opponent came to be
terminated vide order dated 21.01.2019, by placing
reliance on Condition No.12 of the appointment order
of the opponent.
2.2.1 Condition No.12 of the appointment order
dated 17.12.2013 provides that during the tenure of
engagement of the opponent, if, her services are
found to be unsatisfactory or any kind of misconduct
is committed by her, her services are liable to be
terminated without issuance of any notice.
2.3 It appears that after the termination of the
services of the opponent, she filed the captioned
petition, wherein, the learned Single Judge passed
the impugned order, directing the appellants to re-
instate the opponent in sercvice within some
stipulated time. Hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard, learned AGP, Mr. Desai, for the
appellants and learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, for the
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
Opponent.
4. Learned AGP, Mr. Desai, appearing for the
Appellants submitted that the services of the
opponent came to be terminated in consonance with
Condition No. 12 of the appointment order dated
17.12.2013, which provides that, if, her services are
found to be unsatisfactory or any kind of misconduct
is committed by her, her services are liable to be
terminated without issuance of any notice, and
therefore, there was no need to either issue any
notice to the opponent or to conduct any
departmental inquiry against her.
4.1 Learned AGP submitted that in view of the
specific provisions of Condition No.12 of the
appointment order of the opponent, the learned Single
Judge wrongly placed reliance on the order passed by
the Division Bench of this Court, Dated: 24.07.2020,
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019. It was,
therefore, urged that the present appeal be allowed.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Patel,
appearing for the opponent strongly opposed this
appeal and submitted that the services of the
opponent came to be terminated only on the basis of
registration of the FIR and the said issue is
squarely covered by the decision of the Division
Bench of this Court dated 24.07.2020 and therefore,
the learned Single Judge rightly placed reliance on
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
the same.
5.1 It was, further, submitted that so far as the
aspect of registration of the FIR is concerned, the
opponent was granted anticipatory bail by the
concerned Court in regard to the same. It was also
submitted that, after carrying out investigation in
the said FIR, the concerned Investigating Agency has
filed summary. It was, therefore, submitted that the
learned Single Judge committed no error in passing
the impugned judgment and order.
5.2 Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, in support of his
submissions placed reliance on the recent decision of
this Court, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 300
of 2023. In the said matter also an FIR was
registered against the concerned petitioner under the
provisions of the aforesaid Act, whose services came
to be terminated, and he when approached this Court,
the learned Single Judge allowed the said petition.
When the order of the learned Single Judge was
challenged by way of Letters Patent Appeal No. 300 of
2023, the same also came to be dismissed by the
Division Bench. It was, therefore, prayed that this
appeal may not be entertained.
5.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, submitted that the
learned Single Judge has specifically recorded that,
since, the order of termination of services is
stigmatic in nature, it was necessary for the
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
appellants to conduct a full-fledged departmental
inquiry, before terminating the services of the
opponent. It was, therefore, urged that this appeal
be dismissed.
6. We have heard the learned Advocates for the
parties and also perused the material on record. It
appears that the services of the opponent, who was
appointed on the post of Sub-Registrar, Grade-II,
Class-III, came to be terminated pursuant to the
registration of the FIR against her in the year 2018,
by relying on Condition No. 12 of her appointment
order. It is not in dispute that, before terminating
the services of the opponent, neither any notice was
issued to her nor any departmental inquiry was
conducted against her.
6.1 While passing the order of termination of the
services of the opponent, the appellants placed
reliance on Condition No.12 of the appointment order
dated 17.12.2013, which provides that during the
tenure of engagement of the opponent, if, her
services are found to be unsatisfactory or any kind
of misconduct is committed by her, her services are
liable to be terminated without issuance of any
notice. However, the aforesaid condition would come
into play only if, the order of termination of
services is neither punitive nor stigmatic in nature.
6.1.1 In the case on hand, the services of the
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
opponent came to be terminated only on the ground of
registration of the FIR against her, which clearly
appears to be punitive and stigmatic in nature. Here,
it may be noted that, as submitted by learned
Advocate, Mr. Patel, for the opponent, the opponent
was granted anticipatory bail by the concerned trial
Court in connection with the said FIR and that the
concerned investigating agency, after conducting
investigation into the matter, has also filed summary
in the matter. We are, therefore, of the considered
opinion that the learned Single Judge has committed
no error in passing the impugned order.
6.1.2 We notice that the learned Single Judge,
while passing the impugned order dated 16.02.2022,
placed reliance on the order dated 24.07.2020, passed
in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2020, and also
referred to some of the paragraphs, thereof.
6.2 We also notice that in similar type of case in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 300 of 2023, this Court has
also passed an order dated 17.03.2023, while placing
reliance on the observations made by the Division
Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1592
of 2019, and has held that in case of punitive or
stigmatic order of termination of services, it is
necessary to conduct a full-fledged departmental
inquiry. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the
learned Single Judge committed no error in passing
the impugned order and this appeal does not deserve
C/LPA/541/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/04/2023
to be entertained.
7. Resultantly, this appeal fails and is DISMISSED,
accordingly.
7.1 In view of the disposal of the main matter,
Civil Application for stay shall not survive and the
same also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J)
(HASMUKH D. SUTHAR,J)
UMESH/-
