Gujarat High Court
Dipeshbhai Mohanbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 25 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17449 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
No
==========================================================
DIPESHBHAI MOHANBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
JAYDEEP H SINDHI(9585) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.SURBHI BHATI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 25/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati waives
service of Rule on behalf of State.
2. This petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India whereby, challenging the award
passed by learned labour court, Valsad in Reference
(LCV) No.62 of 2017 dated 01.01.2022 whereby, the
reference filed by the present petitioner challenging the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
termination order dated 02.02.2010 was upheld and the
relief of reinstatement with benefits were declined.
3. The gist of the case is that petitioner was appointed as a
Forest Guard (Van Rakshak Sahayak) vide appointment
order dated 01.09.2009 after following the recruitment
process. The appointment of the petitioner was made on
fix term wages and he was drawing Rs.2500/- per month.
He was deputed at the Office of the Range Forest
Officer, Vansada-East Bit Guard Khata-Amba. The
appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis
and on 06.01.2010, on receiving the secret information
by the Office of the Range Forest Officer, Vansada, the
petitioner, co-employees i.e. Dharmesh Patel and
Uttambhai Patel were present at the Naka and waiting
for the Truck bearing registration No.MH-18-M-9324
carrying out forest woods illegally, the petitioner had
tried to stop the said truck, however, the truck driver
did not stop and on following the said truck the
petitioner succeeded in chasing the truck alongwith the
Driver at Palgabhan village. The truck Driver stepped
out from the truck and ran away from the place,
however, the petitioner and the colleagues remained
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
unsuccessful in chasing the truck driver though they had
followed to catch him. The petitioner and his colleagues
had alleged that in connivance of the Higher Officer, the
transportation of woods were made illegally from the
forest and thereafter, on inspection being carried out by
the Deputy Forest Conservator, Valsad, false charges
were claimed and the petitioner was terminated vide
order dated 02.02.2010.
4. In the termination order allegations were made that
petitioner's work was not satisfactory and was found
negligent in his duty and therefore, as per the condition
12 of the appointment order, services were put to an end
to of the petitioner. As without holding the departmental
inquiry, order of termination is passed, therefore, the
same was challenged before the learned labour court by
filing the reference. On considering the submissions
made by both the parties, learned reference court has
rejected the reference and upheld the order of
termination which is subject matter of challenge before
this Court.
5. Heard learned advocate Mr.Sindhi for the petitioner and
learned AGP Ms.Bhati for the State.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
6. Learned advocate Mr.Sindhi submits that the impugned
termination order is punitive in nature and though the
petitioner was a contractual employee, but when the
order which is of stigmatic is passed, then the principle
of natural justice is required to be followed. It is
submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Sindhi that
neither any show cause notice was issued, nor any
departmental inquiry was held and without affording the
opportunity of hearing to defend the charge which was
mentioned in the termination order, the services were
put an end to. Learned advocate Mr.Sindhi submits that
petitioner was made a scape goat as he made an
allegation against the Superior Officer for illegal
transportation of woods from the forest and therefore,
also the impugned order deserves to be set aside and
the petitioner is entitled for the relief of reinstatement
alongwith all consequential benefits.
7. As against the same, learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that
the reference was filed after the delay of seven years
challenging the order of termination dated 02.02.2010
and the petitioner who is a contractual employee was
terminated as per the conditions mentioned in the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
appointment order. Learned AGP Ms.Bhati submits that
the appointment was made on 01.09.2001 and his
services were put an end to on 02.02.2010 and
petitioner has worked only for a period of 123 days
during the above mentioned period and therefore, also
petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs as claimed in the
reference, as the petitioner did not fulfill the condition
prescribed under section 25(b) of the ID Act. Learned
AGP Ms.Bhati submits that after considering the
evidence placed by the employee, learned labour court
has found that there is no breach of provision of section
25(f) of the ID Act and therefore, no error is committed
by the learned labour court in dismissing the reference.
Learned AGP Ms.Bhati further submits that instead of
challenging the termination order before the Higher
Authority, straightaway the reference was filed and
therefore, also the petitioner is not entitled for the relief
as claimed in the reference.
8. Having considered the arguments advanced by both the
parties, it emerges from the record that the appointment
of the petitioner was made on 01.09.2009 on the post of
Forest Guard. On referring the appointment order, it
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
appears that the appointment was on contractual basis,
a fixed wage and as per clause 12 of the appointment
order, if the work is found unsatisfactory or any
misconduct is committed then the services can be put an
end to without issuing any notices. On referring the
termination order which is dated 02.02.2010, it appears
that the said order was passed alleging the misconduct
on the petitioner. It was stated in the order that, though
truck was chased, the petitioner and co-employees
remained unsuccessful in catching the driver and
therefore, they were negligent in their duty.
8.1. It is true that the petitioners were appointed on
contractual basis and they are not entitled for continuity
of service on completion of the contract. However, if the
services are put an end to by alleging misconduct, then
in the opinion of this Court the principle of natural
justice is required to be followed. It is undisputed fact
that the impugned termination is stigmatic in nature. It
is also not in dispute that the said termination order was
passed without holding any departmental inquiry and
without affording any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
8.2. This Court has referred to the decision rendered by
the Apex Court in the case of Mangal Singh Versus
The Chairman, National Research Development
Corportion And Others reported in 2009 SCC OnLine
Del 2345, wherein, it is held that the termination was
not a simplicitor termination, but stigmatic and punitive
in character and therefore, dismissal without affording
the opportunity of presenting the case before the
disciplinary authority is illegal and violating the
protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the
Constitution of India.
8.3. This Court is of the view that as soon as it is shown
that the order purports to caste an aspiration on a
temporary servant, it becomes idle to suggest that the
order is simple order of discharge. The test in those
cases is, does the order caste aspiration or attest stigma
to the employees when it purports to discharge him. As
the impugned termination which is stigmatic in nature
was passed without following the principle of natural
justice and without holding a departmental inquiry,
same is required to be set aside and the impugned
reference awarded against the petitioner is required to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
be interfered with. In that background the ultimate relief
which would be entitled by the petitioner is also
required to be discussed herein.
8.4. To decide what relief petitioner is entitled for, this
Court has referred to the decision rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Telecom District Manager And
Others vs Keshab Deb , reported in 2008 (8) SCC
402 wherein, it is held that even if the provision of
section 25(f) of the ID Act has not been complied with ,
the employees who are contractual employees are
required to be paid the just compensation.
8.5. Applying the same ratio in the present case, it
emerges from the record that the petitioner has worked
for 123 days only and he was a contractual employee on
fixed term as well as there is a delay of seven years in
filing the reference. In that background, this Court is of
the view that instead of granting the relief of
reinstatement, if the lump sum compensation of
Rs.50,000/- is awarded, then ends of justice would meet.
9. Resultantly, this petition being Special Civil Application
No.17449 of 2022 is partly allowed.
10. The respondent is directed to pay the lump sum
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17449/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 25/04/2025
undefined
compensation of Rs.50,000/- in lieu of reinstatement as
well as back wages towards full and final settlement to
the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today.
11. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
