Gujarat High Court
Dushyantkumar Amrutbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 9 April, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4563 of 2025
=====================================================
DUSHYANTKUMAR AMRUTBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
=====================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ADITYA DAVDA ASSISTANT GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 09/04/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep H. Sindhi
appearing for the petitioner and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda
appearing for the respondent - State.
2. By way of this petition the petitioner has
prayed for following reliefs :-
"[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
admit & allow this petition;
[B] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue
a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction,
quashing and setting aside the impugned
illegal, & arbitrary Communication Denying
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Renewal of contract by Letter No.
CRD/0207/09/2023 DATED 16/09/2023, issued
by the Respondent Authorities being
illegal, arbitrary and against the
provisions of law, in the interest of
Justice; [Annexure - A]
[C] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
direct the respondent authorities to
reinstate the petitioner on his original
post and position on the same terms and
conditions that he was originally
appointed, in the interest of Justice;
[D] Pending admission, hearing and final
disposal of the present petition YOUR
LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass order
directing the Respondent to staying the
execution, implementation and operation of
the impugned Communication Denying Renewal
of contract by Letter No. CRD/0207/09/2023
dated 16/09/2023, in the interest of
Justice; [Annexure - A]
[E] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
declare the action of the respondent
authorities in passing the impugned
Communication Denying Renewal of contract
by Letter No. CRD/0207/09/2023 dated
16/09/2023 amount to violation of valuable
right of the petitioner as enshrined under
the provisions of the Constitution of
India more particularly of Article 14 and
21 of the Constitution of India, in the
interest of Justice;
[F] YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to Pass
any such other and/or further orders that
may be thought just and proper, in the
facts and circumstances of the present
case, in the interest of Justice."
3. The case of the petitioner is that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
petitioner was appointed on the post of MIS
(Coordinator) purely on temporary and purely on
ad-hoc and contractual basis for a period of
eleven months on a fixed pay of Rs.7500/- vide
order dated 20.01.2013. Thereafter, the
petitioner services were continued by extending
the contact from time to time and according to
the petitioner, it was decided that the
petitioner shall continue to serve till the
scheme MANREGA would remain in force. It is the
case of the petitioner that respondents alleged
that at the time of inspection of the four
Taluka Panchayats of Mahisagar District,
irregularities were found between 2016 to 2019,
wherein the payments were directly deposited in
the accounts of the vendors by preparing bogus
bills and on the basis of the aforesaid
inquiries, four FIRs were registered in
Mahisagar District for the single offence. The
petitioner was named in all four FIRs. According
to learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi though
the petitioner was not named in any of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
aforesaid FIR on the various date of January and
February 2023 was arrested in connection with
those FIRs wherein between April and May, the
petitioner was bailed out. The details of FIR,
date of arrest of the petitioner and the date on
which bail was granted is placed on record by
way of a chart by the petitioner which is
reproduced as under :-
Sr. Date of CR. NO. Arrest
No. FIR Date/
Bail Date
1 21/12/2020 11187006201565of Arrest :
2020 21/01/2023
Lunawada Police Bail :
Station 06/04/2023
District :
Mahisagar
2 21/12/2020 11187008200903 of Arrest :
2020 28/01/2023
Virpur Police Bail :
Station 11/04/2023
District :
Mahisagar
3 21/12/2020 11187002201128 of Arrest :
2020 28/01/2023
Balsinor Police Bail :
Station 11/04/2023
District :
Mahisagar
4 21/12/2020 11187007201485 of Arrest :
2020 13/02/2023
Santrampur Police Bail :
Station 16/05/2023
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
District :
Mahisagar
4. According to the petitioner, it is on account of
his arrest in connection with the aforesaid FIRs
that the petitioner could not remain present and
therefore on the ground of absenteeism, the
petitioner services were terminated vide order
dated 16.09.2023 and the aforesaid order is
under challenge by way of this petition.
5. Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi submitted
that in respect of other persons who were named
in the FIR and their services were terminated in
the year 2020 itself approached this Court by
way of various petitions. One of them being
Special Civil Application No.8547 of 2021
decided on 16.02.2022 in case of Kamleshbhai
Lalabhai Parmar Versus Secretary, wherein the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held the
termination to be stigmatic and quashed and set
aside the order of termination. Similar was the
case in respect of another petitioner named
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Jamal Daudbhai S/o Iqubalbhai Versus State of
Gujarat who was the petitioner of Special Civil
Application No.8606 of 2022 which was also
decided on 17.08.2022 an order of termination
was quashed and set aside. Reliance was placed
upon common oral judgment in case of Bariya
Pravinbhai Shanabhai Versus State of Gujarat and
others in Special Civil Application No.4111 of
2024 with Special Civil Application No. 12694 of
2022 delivered by the author of this very
judgment whereby also in case of the persons
named in the FIR was terminated by referring the
FIR in the termination order and the termination
was held to be stigmatic by this Court and
therefore, it was prayed by learned advocate Mr.
Jaydeep Sindhi appearing for the petitioner that
the present petitioner also was arrested
pursuant to the FIR and was bailed out and
therefore, he could not remain present during
interregnum period for 121 days and therefore,
he is also required to be treated similarly.
Therefore, learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
prayed for issuance of notice and to allow the
petition thereafter.
5.1 Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi
also submitted that before passing the order of
termination, no opportunity of hearing was given
to the petitioner and therefore also the order
is stigmatic and therefore, the petitioner is
required to be reinstated. Learned advocate Mr.
Jaydeep Sindhi submitted that though the other
persons named in the FIR were considered and
their termination was held to be stigmatic, the
case of the present petitioner was not
considered on the same line and therefore, also
on the ground of similar treatment, the
petitioner is required to be reinstated. Lastly,
it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep
Sindhi that in view of decision of Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court dated 07.06.2021 passed in
Special Civil Application No. 8781 of 2017 and
allied matters in case of Jayeshkumar Vishnubhai
Patel and 5 others Versus State of Gujarat and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
others, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
relying upon paragraph No.8 of the said
judgment, it was stated that in similar set of
facts a contractual employee was directed to be
continued in service till the scheme continues
by the Co-ordinate Bench. However, the
respondents have acted in a different manure in
case of present petitioner and terminated his
services on the ground of absenteeism. By making
above submissions, learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep
Sindhi prayed for allowing the petition.
5.2 Learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi
also submitted that as soon as the petitioner
preferred an application for contempt being
Misc. Civil Application No. 1604 of 2023 in
Special Civil Application No. 8781 of 2017 after
the aforesaid application for contempt was
filed, the order of termination was passed
against the present petitioner as a counterblast
to the contempt proceedings.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
6. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya
Davda appearing for the respondent - State
vehemently opposed the petition and submitted
that the facts of the present petition is
different than the facts of the cases which are
annexed along with the petition and relied upon
by learned advocate Mr. Jaydeep Sindhi. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda
submitted that when a termination order is
challenged on the ground of the order being
stigmatic what is important is to consider the
language of order of termination.
6.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that as can be seen
from the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
in respect of concerned employees who were named
in the FIR and their termination was based on
registration of FIR against them and the Co-
ordinate Bench has specifically observed that by
referring the FIR in the order of termination
their services were terminated on the ground of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
registration of FIR and therefore considering
that the order was held to be stigmatic by the
Co-ordinate Bench and the petitioner was
directed to be reinstated.
6.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Aditya Davda also pointed out that even
while doing so a full-fledged inquiry was
allowed to be held against the concerned
employee, it was pointed out from the above
decision that the Co-ordinate Bench
categorically held that the respondents are not
precluded from initiating action against the
petitioner qua incident in question or
termination in accordance with law.
6.3 Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that in the instant
case, the order of termination does not refer to
registration of any FIR but refers to only the
ground of absenteeism being the basis of
terminating the services of the petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
6.4 Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Aditya Davda submitted that a termination on
the ground of absenteeism cannot be said to be a
stigmatic termination in view of decision of
this Court dated 27.01.2025 in Special Civil
Application No.5939 of 2023 in case of
Dhirenbhai Prahladji Thakor Versus State of
Gujarat and others, wherein on a similar ground
of absenteeism when the services of the
petitioner was terminated, this Court had by
relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of State of West Bengal Versus
Tapas Roy reported in 2006 (6) SCC 453 has held
that such termination would not be stigmatic and
it cannot be said to be a stigmatic termination
an order of termination was upheld. Learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda
therefore submitted that in view of above clear
position of law, the order impugned cannot be
said to be stigmatic termination and therefore,
even if the similarly situated persons have
succeeded, the present petition must fail for
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
the simple reason that the termination of the
persons who were named in the FIR was based on a
reference of FIR in the termination order
whereas in the instant case it is only
absenteeism which is referred to in the order
and which the basis for terminating the services
of the petitioner. He, therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
6.5 Learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr. Aditya Davda, thereafter submitted that even
otherwise the order of termination was passed on
16.09.2023 which is sought to be challenged only
in the year 2025. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda also relied upon a
decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court
dated 23.03.2022 in case of Gohil Kuldipsinh
Chhanubhai and 5 others Versus State of Gujarat
and 2 others in Special Civil Application No.
8436 of 2018 and allied matters, wherein in
paragraph No.10 while summarizing the
observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
Co-ordinate Bench has observed that a
contractual employee has no right to have his or
her contract renewed from time to time, on the
basis of aforesaid judgment, learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Aditya Davda prayed for
dismissal of this petition.
7. I have heard learned advocates appearing for the
respective parties and perused the record. Upon
perusal of record, I found that the order of
termination dated 16.09.2023 which is a short
order in vernacular language and the translation
of operating part of the order reads as under :-
"Sir,
This is to inform you that in respect
of subject cited above that you were
serving as MIS Coordinator in this office,
your contract after 31.08.2022 has not
been renewed but since you have worked in
this office up to 20.01.2023, the salary
for the said period is already paid to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
you. Thereafter, you have remained absent
without even informing anyone from
21.01.2023 till 22.05.2023 (i.e. 121 days)
and therefore, on account of continuous
absenteeism, your contract is not required
to be renewed that you may please note.
Sd/-"
8. The aforesaid order of termination would
indicate that the petitioners services were
terminated on account of absenteeism and not on
account of his arrest or his alleged involvement
in respect of four FIRs in respect of alleged
involvement in respect of offence registered
vide four different FIRs.
9. In the instant case, the petitioner has heavily
relied upon the decisions of this Court which
are delivered including by this Court in respect
of co-employees of the petitioner whose services
were terminated on account of registration of
FIR against them. However, it is not in dispute
that the aforesaid orders were quashed in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
respective proceedings by considering the
language of the order of termination and a
perusal of the order dated 16.02.2022 in Special
Civil Application No. 8547 of 2021 and more
particularly paragraph No.5 of the said judgment
would indicate that the Court has considered
that the order of termination was referring to
registration of FIR against the petitioner and
therefore, the same was held to be stigmatic.
Similar observation was made in paragraph No.5
of the judgment dated 17.08.2022 in Special
Civil Application No. 8606 of 2022, same was the
case in respect of common oral judgment dated
30.01.2025 delivered by this very Court in
Special Civil Application No.4111 of 2024 with
Special Civil Application No. 12694 of 2022,
wherein in paragraph No.4 of the order, there is
a clear mentioned about the fact that the
services of the petitioner was terminated on
account of reference of FIR registered against
the petitioner and therefore, those orders were
held to be stigmatic and order of termination
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
was quashed.
10. In the instant case, the order of
termination is based on the ground of
absenteeism and therefore, what is required to
be seen is whether an order of termination based
on absenteeism can be said to be a stigmatic
order or not.
11. This Court had an occasion to deal with such
situation in case of Dhirenbhai Prahladji Thakor
Versus State of Gujarat and others decided on
27.01.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 5939
of 2023 wherein this Court has observed in
paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 as under :-
"6. Ms. Tanushree Shrimal, learned
AGP appearing for the respondent
No.1 pointed out that the
petitioner's services were never
regularized and still he was a
probationer and, therefore, for
services of the petitioner, no full-
fledged inquiry is required. She
further submitted that the
petitioner's services was terminated
on account of 769 days absenteeism
which is recorded in the order which
cannot be said to be a stigmatic but
the same reflects the fact about the
petitioner's presence. She further
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
submitted that in similar case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of West Bengal v. Tapas Roy,
2006 (6) SCC 453 has held that such
termination would not be stigmatic
and it cannot be said to be a
stigmatic termination and the order
of termination was upheld. She
relied upon paragraphs 7 and 8 of
the said decision and prayed for
dismissal of the petition.
7. I have heard learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties
and perused the record. It is an
undisputed fact that the
petitioner's services were
terminated by noticing 769 days
absenteeism alleged against the
petitioner. It is also an undisputed
fact that the petitioner was not on
regular establishment and his
appointment was contractual in
nature meaning thereby the
petitioner was not a regular
employee and, therefore, for
terminating the services of the
petitioner, no full-fledged inquiry
was required. Further, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State
of West Bengal v. Tapas Roy (supra),
has observed in paragraphs 7 and 8
as under :-
"7.The order of discharge has, as
we have already indicated, set out
several instances of the respondent
absenting himself unauthorizedly
from the training centre. These
facts have been relied upon for the
purpose of concluding that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
respondent was not interested in
the training and had no respect for
discipline. This conclusion was a
ground for holding that the
respondent was unsuitable for the
Police Department.
8.The High Court was of the view
that R.10 of the Rules did not
apply to orders which were
stigmatic. As has already been held
by this Court in Pavanendra Narayan
Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of
Medical Sciences that in order to
constitute a stigmatic order
necessitating a formal inquiry, it
would have to be seen whether prior
to the passing of the order, there
was an inquiry into the allegations
involving moral turpitude or
misconduct so that the order of
discharge was really a finding of
guilt. If any of these three
factors are absent, the order would
not be punitive. We have also held
that stigma in the wider sense of
the word is implicit in every order
of termination during probation. It
is only when there is something
more than imputing unsuitability
for the post in question, that the
order may be considered to be
stigmatic. In our view, the
language, quoted earlier in the
discharge order, cannot be said to
be stigmatic as it neither alleges
any moral turpitude or misconduct
on the part of the respondent nor
was there an inquiry as such
preceding the order of discharge.
The order has been passed strictly
in terms of R.10 of the Rules. We
are, accordingly, of the view that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
the appeal must be allowed. It is,
accordingly, allowed and the
impugned order is set aside."
8. In view of the above observations
made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
more particularly, when the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held that stigma
in the wider sense of the word is
implicit in every order of
termination during probation. It is
only when there is something more
than imputing unsuitability for the
post in question, that the order may
be considered to be stigmatic. In
view of the above, the impugned
order of termination cannot be said
to be an order of stigmatic
termination and hence, the
submission of learned advocate Mr.
Bharda that the impugned order is a
stigmatic order cannot be accepted.
9. As far as the other submission
of learned advocate Mr. Bharda that
the petitioner's application for
regularization was not considered by
the respondents and upon that
application, services of the
petitioner was terminated is
concerned, considering the fact that
the petitioner was not a regular
employee, the respondents were not
even required to assign any reasons
for terminating his services and
once the order of termination is not
found to be stigmatic, the
respondents were well within their
right to terminate the services of
the petitioner. Accordingly, the
above submission also cannot be
accepted.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
10. Resultantly, the petition
fails and is required to be
dismissed and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Rule
discharged. No order as to costs."
12. The aforesaid decision would indicate that
stigma in the wider sense of the word is
implicit in every order of termination during
probation and it is only when there is something
more than imputing unsuitability for the post in
question then only the order can be considered
to be stigmatic.
13. In the instant case also, the petitioner
services are terminated on the ground of
absenteeism which depicts the facts about the
petitioner's conduct and does not form any
opinion about the petitioner's capability and
therefore, the order cannot be said to be
stigmatic order.
14. Even otherwise as per the decision relied
upon by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.
Aditya Davda appearing for the respondent -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
State, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
its judgment dated 23.03.2022 in case of Gohil
Kuldipsinh Chhanubhai and 5 others Versus State
of Gujarat and 2 others in Special Civil
Application No. 8436 of 2018 and allied matters,
summarized the legal preposition about the
contractual employees and their employment in
paragraph No.10 as under :-
"10. Thus, the synopsis of the afore
noted observations of the Apex Court
is as under:
(a) Article 16(1) of the Constitution is
not applicable and everything is governed
by contract. The persons holding the tem-
porary / ad hoc or contractual for a fixed
period do not have any right to such
posts, and their appointment comes to an
end after such period gets over. Such
right is not available even if the con-
tract is renewed intermittently.
(b) Having accepted the terms and condi-
tions stipulated in the appointment or-
ders, they are not permitted to turn back
from such conditions.
(c) The contractual employees have no right
to have his or her contract renewed from
time to time.
(d) The termination of a contractual em-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
ployment in accordance with the terms of
the contract is permissible and the em-
ployee could claim no protection against
such termination even when one of the con-
tracting parties happens to be the State,
and it is not bound to re-employee the em-
ployee.
(e) The State can enter into contracts of
temporary employment and impose special
terms in each case, provided they are not
inconsistent with the Constitution, and
those who choose to accept those terms and
enter into the contract are bound by them,
even as the State is bound."
15. The small (c) of the aforesaid paragraph
No.10 would indicate that the contractual
employees have no right to have his or her
contract renewed from time to time.
16. In view of above, when the termination of
the petitioner is not stigmatic, the petitioners
duty is not replaced by some other contractual
employee as can be seen from the order and as
the contractual employee has no right to seek
extension of contract, the petition fails. The
order whereby the petitioner's contract is not
renewed on the ground of absenteeism is held to
be a non-stigmatic order as the same does not
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
caste any stigma upon the present petitioner.
17. Further, when the petitioner is a
contractual employee and he does not have any
right to be continued in the employment and
considering the fact that the petitioners
services are terminated way back in the year
2023 vide order dated 16.09.2023, the said order
cannot be said to be illegal order and
therefore, no interference against the said
order is called for. Accordingly, the present
petition is required to be dismissed and the
same is dismissed.
18. In view of the petitioner's submission that
the order of termination is passed as a
counterblast to the application of contempt, the
said submission is not backed by any documentary
evidence or any other credible material and when
the order of termination is not based on
registration of FIR or does not say anything
about the contempt proceedings, I have to
consider the same as it is unless the submission
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4563/2025 ORDER DATED: 09/04/2025
undefined
of the petitioner is backed by some documentary
evidence or any other credible material and
therefore, the aforesaid submission is
absolutely baseless and cannot be taken into
consideration. Petition is dismissed
accordingly.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J)
Pallavi
