District Development Officer vs Dipti Babubhai Rupareliya
2023 Latest Caselaw 4933 Guj

     C/LPA/793/2023                              ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 793 of 2023
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7546 of 2022
                               With
       CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2023
            In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 793 of 2023
==========================================================
                      DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
                                  Versus
                        DIPTI BABUBHAI RUPARELIYA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HS MUNSHAW(495) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MS SHRUTI DHRUVE, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

                             Date : 27/06/2023

                        ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw for the appellant and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms.Shruti Dhruve for the respondent.

2. The present Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 19.4.2023 of learned single Judge whereby Special Civil Application of the respondent- original petitioner came to be allowed. The order of termination as well as the appellate order passed against the respondent came to be set aside. She was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service.

       C/LPA/793/2023                          ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023




2.1     Liberty was reserved by learned single Judge for the

respondent to initiate disciplinary proceedings for the alleged misconduct which was mentioned in the termination order.

3. The facts to be noticed are inter alia that respondent prayed in the Special Civil Application to set aside the order dated 4.4.2021 passed by the District Development Officer, as also to set aside order dated 5.3.2022 passed by the Secretary, Rural Housing and Rural Development Department, Gandhinagar - the appellate authority. They were the orders of terminating the services of the petitioner.

3.1 The petitioner was Laboratory Technician posted at Primary Health Centre, Tithad, Taluka Jodia, District Jamnagar on fixed salary for a period of five years with effect from 10.4.2017. She was on contractual appointment. The allegations were levelled against her on the basis of the newspaper report that while she was entrusted the duty to undertake the RTPCR sample tests during the COVID-19 period and in that she was required to undertake the checking of each patient individually to take samples from mouth, thereby, preparing kit and sending to the health centre. It was further alleged that report was prepared by her without taking any such samples and even wrong samples were sent for testing. It was alleged that respondent had committed serious dereliction in duty. The misconduct was thus alleged on that count.

3.2 The termination order dated 4.4.2021 was passed on the said ground that respondent having committed misconduct, the services were liable to be terminated. When the respondent

C/LPA/793/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

preferred appeal against the said order, the termination order was confirmed by the appellate authority. Thereafter, present petition came to be filed.

4. On perusal of the facts, there is no gainsaying that the termination of the respondent was passed on the allegations of misconduct, as highlighted above. The order was stigmatic. It is well settled law that the stigmatic order leading to punishment or termination of service has to be preceded by regular departmental inquiry.

4.1 Learned single Judge was entirely justified in reiterating the law on the basis of the decision of this court in State of Gujarat Vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 decided on 24.7.2020. Therein it is held after considering various decisions on the issue that when the order is stigmatic, a full-fledged departmental inquiry is required to be held.

4.2 The view was reiterated by Division Bench of this court in State of Gujarat Vs. Ghanshyambhai Hirjibhai Sonagara in Letters Patent Appeal No.1125 of 2021, decided on 24.12.2021, which was quoted by learned single Judge in para 9 to extract in this order also,

"9. This Court has perused the submissions, documents on record and legal position in respect of issue in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Thus, it can be seen from the law laid down that it is foundation of the order of discharge which is to be looked into, to ascertain whether termination was by way of punishment and in absence of inquiry held in accordance with Article 311(2) of

C/LPA/793/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

the Constitution of India. It has been further held that such order of dismissal which is passed without holding departmental inquiry cannot be allowed to sustain.

10. Learned AGP could not dispute legal position in this regard. Further, it is seen in the present case that no inquiry was held before passing order of termination thereby denying respondent herein opportunity to defend his case. The very nature of contents of termination order also reveal that it is stigmatic in nature.

11. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed and the impugned order of the learned Single Judge requires no interference by this Court."

5. While the order of learned single Judge on the aforesaid count is eminently just, proper and legal, the only infirmity seen in the order is that the continuity of service is granted, although the respondent was a contractual employee for fixed period of five years. Since the term of appointment of the petitioner was limited to five years, the question of granting continuity of service while reinstating him, does not arise. Learned single Judge could be said to have been clearly erred in directing continuity of service to the petitioner.

5.1 As noted above, the petitioner was appointed on 10.4.2017 at Jamnagar Jilla Panchayat at the post of Laboratory Technician for limited period of five years. His term was to expire on 9.4.2022. The order was passed terminating his services on 4.4.2021, therefore the reinstatement of the petitioner could not have been beyond the term of five years.

5.2    In the aforesaid view, it is provided that reinstatement of






          C/LPA/793/2023                          ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

the petitioner shall be for the remainder period only to make-up total five years as per the original term of appointment.

6. Subject to above clarification and qualification, rest of the part of the judgment and directions issued by learned single Judge are sustained.

7. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed excepting the above clarification and qualification.

In view of disposal of the appeal, the Civil Application will not survive. Accordingly, it is disposed of.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(J. C. DOSHI,J) Manshi