Gujarat High Court
Alok Ambikaprasad Soni vs Commissioner on 24 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2165/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2165 of 2018
==========================================================
ALOK AMBIKAPRASAD SONI
Versus
COMMISSIONER, & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NIYATI CHAUHAN FOR MR RITURAJ M MEENA(3224) for the
Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS DIMPLE A THAKER(6838) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PARTH PATEL, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 24/06/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present petition is filed for the following
prayers:
"8(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow
this petition.
8(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the
respondent to reinstate the present petitioner on ad hoc
basis as Ortho Surgeon and be pleased to direct the
respondent to pay all the consequential reliefs to the
petitioner.
(C) xxxxx"
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2165/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
2. Heard learned advocates for the parties.
3. Learned advocate Ms.Chauhan has contended that
the petitioner was appointed as Ortho Surgeon in Civil
General Hospital, Bharuch on ad hoc basis in the month of
October, 2000. The petitioner has pointed out to the higher
authority regarding condition and availability of the
orthopedics. operation theater. He has also made necessary
representation about the issuance of disability certificate to
the disabled person, however, no response is received by the
higher authority though all these things were brought to the
notice of the higher authority. Thereafter, vide letter dated
15.1.2003, the petitioner addressed a resignation letter to
the Commissioner. The petitioner has also applied for leave
for a period of 9.1.2003 to 8.2.2003 to the authorities,
however, the same was rejected by the Chief District Medical
Officer, Bharuch. Thereafter, the petitioner was terminated
from service by letter dated 9.1.2003.
4. Learned advocate for the petitioner further
submitted that the petitioner was falsely charged with the
offences punishable under Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 on the ground that the
complaint is given that the petitioner demanded Rs.10,000/-
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2165/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
for issuance of disability certificate and on negotiation, settled
for Rs.8,000/- with the complainant. Pursuant to the said
complaint, raid was carried out and the petitioner was caught
red handed and investigation was carried out, chargesheet
was filed and Special (Corruption) Case No.5 of 2003 was
registered. After trial, the petitioner was acquitted, against
which the criminal appeal was filed before this Court being
Criminal Appeal No.2440 of 2005, which was also dismissed
vide order dated 23.12.2016. Thereafter, this petition is
preferred on 11.1.2018 for the prayers as prayed for in the
petition.
5. She has submitted that considering the fact that
now the basis of termination of the petitioner which was the
criminal case is not existing, the services of the petitioner is
required to be restored and all benefits are required to be
granted. Therefore, she prayed to allow this petition as the
authorities have not properly considered all these aspects.
6. Learned AGP, Mr. Shah has strongly opposed the
petition. By referring to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the
State, he has submitted that the service of the petitioner was
ad hoc appointment and as per condition no.4, the petitioner
is not entitled to be reinstated as he is not regular
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2165/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
government employee and his service was taken on purely
ad-hoc basis. He, further submitted that as per the
appointment order, the petitioner was appointed on adhoc
basis for six months or his tenure extended whichever is
more by the Commissioner of Health. He further submitted
that the petitioner was caught red handed on 8.1.2003 for
demanding bribe of Rs.10,000/- for issuing disability
certificate, thereafter the proceedings are initiated,
investigation was carried out against him, chargesheet was
filed and special case was also registered wherein he was
acquitted and thereafter the appeal is filed by the state
which is also dismissed. However, the fact remains that the
petitioner is involved in serious misconduct of asking for a
bribe though it is not proved before the Special Court.
7. He has further relied on the Government
Resolution of Health and Family Welfare Department dated
24.2.2003, whereby it is provided that the service of the
petitioner can be terminated with immediate effect. He
submitted that the outstanding salary, salary corresponding to
leave and dearness allowance is paid to the petitioner by
way of cheque and therefore, on that count also after
complying the necessary condition in the appointment order of
the ad hoc appointment of the petitioner, the service of the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2165/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
petitioner was terminated. He submitted that he is not a
regular recruit through GPSC and therefore cannot claim any
right after acquitted by the concerned Court.
8. He further submitted that it is also relevant to
note that the petitioner remained silent for almost 13 years
as the trial court delivered judgment on 21.5.2005 and this
petition is filed in the year 2018. Even the appeal is
dismissed in the year 2016. Therefore, considering all these
aspects and considering the petitioner was purely appointed
on ad-hoc basis and looking to his conduct also, no relief can
be granted. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss this petition.
9. I have considered the rival submissions advanced
by the parties and perused the papers.
10. It is undisputed that the termination order was
passed in the year 2003 and the present petition is filed in
the year 2018. The learned Sessions Court acquitted the
petitioner in the year 2005 and even the appeal was
dismissed in the year 2016. This petition is filed by a
person-petitioner who was appointed purely on ad-hoc basis
and that too after a huge delay of almost 13 years. Further,
the authorities have followed the necessary procedure
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/2165/2018 ORDER DATED: 24/06/2025
undefined
prescribed in the appointment order by paying outstanding
salary, salary corresponding to leave and dearness allowance
by cheque to the petitioner at the time of termination.
Further, looking to the Government Resolution relied on by
learned AGP, such employee cannot get any benefit, more
particularly, when he was not regular recruit through the
GPSC and his appointment order was purely on ad-hoc basis.
Further, the charges levelled against the petitioner was of
demanding and receiving bribe for issuing disability
certificate.
11. In view of the above, considering the totality of
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the
opinion that the respondent authorities have not committed
any error in terminating the services, this petition is required
to be dismissed. Accordingly, dismissed. Notice/Rule, if any,
stands discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
SRILATHA
