Chaudhari Ramesh Dudaram vs State Of Gujarat
2025 Latest Caselaw 2356 Guj

Gujarat High Court

Chaudhari Ramesh Dudaram vs State Of Gujarat on 7 August, 2025

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                          C/SCA/18460/2017                                      JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025

                                                                                                                 undefined




                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18460 of 2017

                                                  With
                        CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR FIXING DATE OF HEARING) NO. 1 of
                                                  2025
                            In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 18460 of 2017

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                      ==========================================================

                                   Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                              CHAUDHARI RAMESH DUDARAM
                                                         Versus
                                                STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MR KB PUJARA(680) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
                      GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR KAUSHAL D PANDYA(2905) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
                      RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 2,4
                      ==========================================================

                       CORAM:            HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

                                                        Date : 07/08/2025

                                                         ORAL JUDGMENT

1. The following facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as a primary teacher / Vidya-sahayak on 05.01.2002 and had joined duties on 07.02.2002. On completion of five years he was also placed a regular pay-scale.

2. From 25.07.2014 to 04.11.2015, the petitioner remained absent

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18460/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

from duty on the ground that his father was seriously ill and he was required to take care of him at Ahmedabad. It appears that period of leave from 25.07.2014 to 04.11.2015 was sanctioned subjected to the condition that the petitioner repays the salary that he had drawn during this period. The petitioner accordingly, refunded the salary i.e. Rs. 1,85,211/- that he had drawn for the aforementioned period during which he had absent.

3. On 01.02.2016, the petitioner submitted a leave letter requesting for grant of leave without pay on the ground that his father who was staying at Ahmedabad was once again seriously ill. The headmaster forwarded this letter to the administrative officer i.e. respondent No. 3 herein. However, no order was passed on this application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner, even though not sanctioned leave without pay, proceeded to remain absent, since he had to look after his father.

4. On 27.09.2016, the Administrative Officer i.e. respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before him on 01.10.2016. According to the petitioner, he reported for the duty on 01.10.2016 before the Headmaster but he declined to permit to the petitioner to be taken back on duty until he received the instruction from the respondent no.

5. The petitioner has placed on record a letter dated 05.10.2016, which is addressed to the Administrative Officer and the Principal as Annexure-D in which, it is stated that he was reporting for duty and he be permitted to join duty. There is an

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18460/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

acknowledgment of receipt of this letter on the very same day however, it is not clear as to who is the signatory on this particular annexure- D.

6. In the reply filed by the respondent at para 15, it is stated as follows:

"15. I submit that petitioner did not turn on service on 01.10.2016, and on 05.10.2016 submits the letter to join service however, not resume the duty."

7. In the light of this averment, it is clear that the petitioner did respond to the show cause notice and appeared before the Principal though it is stated in the reply that he did not resume duty. The fact that no notice was issued to the petitioner after 05.10.2016 contending that he had not resumed for duty despite appearing before them on 05.10.2016, this would probabilist the contention of the petitioner that he did report for duty on 05.10.2016 and yet was not allowed to join duty.

8. It is to be stated here that if an employee who had remained continuously absent from February-2016 to September-2016 voluntarily appeared either before the principal of before the administrative officer, the normal course of action should have been to take the employee to back on duty. The respondent No. 1 by acknowledging the petitioner had appeared before them on 05.10.2016, admit to the fact that he did report for duty. The averment that he did not resume duty cannot be accepted since there is no material placed on record post 05.10.2016 about the continued absence of the petitioner thereafer.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18460/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

9. As the matter stood thus, on 23.03.2017, the petitioner was straight away issued with an order of termination by the Administrative Officer i.e. Respondent No. 3. This order of termination is supposed to have been preceded by a public notice, in which the petitioner was called upon to report for duty and an assertion that he was unauthorizedly absent was made. In my view, this order of termination cannot be sustained for more than one reason. If the petitioner had reported for duty on 05.10.2016 and had remained absent thereafter, the authorities should have issued a notice to him intimating him that he had mearly appeared on 05.10.2016 but had not resumed duty and therefore, his services were likely to be dispensed with.

10. Admittedly, the public notice does not indicate that the prisoner had appeared on 05.10.2016 before them and it proceeds on the footing that he was unauthorizedly absent from 01.02.2016. In my view, this fallacy in the public notice completely vitiates the said notice. The authorities having come to the conclusion that the petitioner was unauthorizely absent were duty bound to hold an inquiry and the mere issuance of a public notice would not entitle them to pass an order of termination, more so, in the background of the fact that the petitioner had infact appeared before them on 05.10.2016.

11. The normal course that should have been adopted by the authorities was that the petitioner should have been permitted to resume duty and thereafter proceedings on the departmental side should have been initiated. In this case, the authorities by refusing to take the petitioner back to duty, despite him reporting on 05.10.2016, have committed an illegality and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18460/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

compounded this illegality by passing an order of termination on 23.03.2017 without holding any inquiry. Consequentially, the order of termination cannot be sustained.

12. The Tribunal has confirmed the order of termination on the ground that a public notice has been issued to the petitioner. As stated above, the public notice would have no value at all, in the light of the fact that the petitioner did respond to the show cause notice dated 27.09.2016 and did appear before the authorities on 05.10.2016 but yet was not permitted to be taken back on duty. Since the petitioner has been terminated without conducting any inquiry, the impugned order of termination cannot be sustained and same is accordingly quashed.

13. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated to the post of teacher forthwith at the earliest within a period of 4 weeks. However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner had remained absent and had gone on leave even before his request for long leave was sanctioned, he shall not be entitled for any financial benefits for that period of time during which he was out of service.

14. The petitioner having reported back for duty on 05.10.2016, it is obvious that the respondents cannot proceed against him on the basis that he had unauthorizedly remained absent.

15. Since, the show cause notice that was issued to the petitioner asking him to report back for duty was complied with

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/18460/2017 JUDGMENT DATED: 07/08/2025

undefined

when he reported back for duty. The proceedings therefore would automatically come to an end, in so far as his unauthorized absence is concerned.

16. Accordingly, writ petition is partly allowed.

17. The petitioner shall, however, be entitled to count this period from which he was out of service only for the purpose of computation of his retiral benefits.

18. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.

(NSSG,J) Mehul Desai