Gujarat High Court
Ravi Devendrabhai Suthar vs State Of Gujarat on 27 June, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6931 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
RAVI DEVENDRABHAI SUTHAR
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR GM JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE with
VYOM H SHAH(9387) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR HENIL M SHAH, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
Date : 27/06/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. The present petition, under Article 311 of the
Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner challenging
the termination order dated 06.03.2019 passed by the
respondent Authorities and seeking reinstatement on his
original post with continuity of service and with all
consequential benefits.
2. Heard learned advocates.
3. The facts of the present case, as emerged from the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
record, are as under.
3.1 Pursuant to the advertisement for the post of
Industrial Safety and Health Officer, Class-II published in the
year 2009, the petitioner is selected and appointed on that
post vide order dated 09.08.2011. There was a probation
period of two years.
3.2 As averred, since the petitioner was wrongly
framed in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 in the year 2013 under which it was alleged that the
petitioner had taken a bribe of Rs.7,000/- and his case was
pending before the competent Court, his services were put
under suspension by the respondent authorities vide order
dated 11.09.2013. The said suspension period was extended
from time to time by the respondent authorities till 2018.
3.3 The petitioner was reinstated in service by the
respondent authorities vide order dated 11.04.2018.
3.4 Since the appointment of the petitioner is in the
year 2013, his probation period of two years has been over
by the year 2015. As averred, there was no order of
extension of probation by the respondent authorities.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
3.5 The respondent authorities, without any notice or
memo regarding any charge or unsatisfactory service,
terminated the services of the petitioner by the impugned
order.
3.6 Hence, this petition.
4. Rule returnable forthwith. With consent of the
learned advocates, the matter is taken up for hearing and
final disposal today.
5.1 Learned senior advocate Mr. G.M.Joshi with
learned advocate Mr.Vyom H. Shah for the petitioner has
submitted that the the services of the petitioner are
terminated by the respondent authorities without conducting
any inquiry to prove the alleged misconduct and dereliction of
duty; and that the respondent authorities have not accorded
any reason for dispensing with the inquiry in the impugned
termination order; and that no charge-sheet or no intimation
regarding the inquiry is communicated to the petitioner; and
that even without giving an opportunity to explain, the
respondent authorities have terminated the services of the
petitioner.
5.2 He has further submitted that the sequence of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
events commencing from the appointment, suspension,
extension of suspension and termination of suspension,
extension of probation by order dated 09.07.2014 till
18.08.2015 would go to show that the petitioner continued on
long term basis and the probation period of the petitioner is
ended. He has also submitted that the respondents
consciously extended the period of probation up to 18.08.2015
and by not extending the period of probation any further, the
petitioner has to be treated as been completed his probation
period.
5.3 He has also submitted that bare reading of the
impugned order demonstrates that it is stigmatic inasmuch as
the same casts aspersions and therefore, could not have been
passed without following the procedure prescribed by law and
as per the constitutional guarantee under Article 311(2).
5.4 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision of this Court recorded on Letters Patent Appeal
No.841 of 2019 dated 15.04.2019 in the case of Rahul
Aydanbhai Vank versus State of Gujarat, which was arising
from the order dated 05.09.2018 passed by the Coordinate
Bench of this Court recorded on Special Civil Application
No.889 of 2018 and has submitted that identical facts were
there and this Court has allowed the petition of that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
petitioner, against which, the State has preferred appeal,
which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.
5.5 He has submitted that this petition may be
allowed and the petitioner may be reinstated on his original
post with full backwages and with all consequential benefits.
6.1 Per contra, learned AGP Mr.Henil M. Shah for the
State Authorities has drawn the attention of this Court
towards the affidavit in reply and has vehemently opposed
this petition. He has submitted that the probation period of
the petitioner was not over and he was caught in ACB trap
in the year 18.07.2013, therefore, the petitioner was
suspended during the period of probation. He has submitted
that the suspension period of the petitioner was extended
from time to time till 11.04.2018 and the petitioner was
reinstated in service on 11.04.2018.
6.2 He has submitted that the confidential reports of
the petitioner were not up to the mark as per the guidelines
declared by the General Administrative Department's Circular
dated 30.03.1989; and that the confidential reports were not
at par with the conditions mentioned in the appointment
order; and that due to the conditions not being fulfilled as
per the appointment order of the petitioner, the petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
was terminated by the respondent authorities vide order
dated 06.03.2019.
6.3 In support of his submissions, he has relied upon
the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State
of Punjab versus Jaswant Singh reported in 2023 INSC SC
798 (recorded on Civil Appeal No.11871 of 2014), whereby the
Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that if a Government
personnel working against the rules prescribed by the State
and during his period shows that his efficiency is in fact in
question and he cannot be kept in service as he is not
meeting with the prescribed requirements that an employer
needs. He has submitted that the present petitioner could
only have secured his employment only if he would have
proved sincerity towards his duties and has not been caught
in the ACB trap. He has submitted that this petition may be
dismissed.
7.1 I have considered the rival submissions made by
the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have
perused the documents available on record. From the record,
it transpires that pursuant to the advertisement published in
the year 2009, the petitioner is appointed on the post of
Industrial Safety and Health Officer, Class-II vide order dated
09.08.2011. In the appointment order, it is mentioned that
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
there is a probation of two years. There are other conditions
mentioned in the said appointment order.
7.2 During the period of probation, the petitioner is
framed in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 in the year 2013, where it is alleged that the petitioner
had taken a bribe of Rs.7,000/- and case is pending before
the competent Criminal Court. Therefore, the services of the
petitioner were put under suspension vide order dated
11.09.2013 by the respondent authorities. The said suspension
was extended from time to time by the respondent
authorities. The last suspension order was served upon the
petitioner on 15.09.2017.
7.3 Vide order dated 11.04.2018, the petitioner was
reinstated in service with effect from 15.12.2017 by the
respondent authorities.
7.4 It is required to be noted that as the petitioner is
appointed in the year 2011 and since there was a probation
of two years initially, his probation was required to be over
by the year 2013 as such, however, since the respondent
authorities have extended his probation period for more two
years vide order dated 09.07.2014, the probation period was
required to be over by the year 2015. Thereafter, neither the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
respondent authorities have extended the probation period of
the petitioner nor it was communicated by the respondent
authorities to the petitioner regarding any extension qua the
probation. Therefore, anyone can believe that the period of
probation gets over in the year 2015.
7.5 The respondent authorities have terminated the
services of the petitioner by the impugned order dated
06.03.2019. The basis of the impugned order is that since one
of the conditions, being condition No.5(C) of the appointment
order, does not fulfilled by the petitioner, his services are not
found satisfactory during the probation, therefore, the
petitioner's services are required to be terminated in view of
the Government Resolution No.PRO/1088/1709-G.2 passed by
the Government Administrative Department dated 30.03.1989,
more particularly, Guideline No.9 thereof.
7.6 It is a matter of record that the impugned
termination order is passed by the respondent authorities on
06.03.2019 without any communication and/or without any
order passed by the respondent authorities regarding the
extension of probation period of the petitioner during the
period of four years i.e. from the year 2015 to 2019.
7.7 At this stage, it would be fruitful to refer to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
Article 311 of the Constitution of India, which is as under.
"311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank
of persons employed in civil capacities under
the Union or a State -
(1) No person who is a member of a civil
service of the Union or an all India service or
a civil service of a State or holds a civil post
under the Union or a Slate shall be dismissed
or removed by a authority subordinate to that
by which he was appointed.
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except
after an inquiry in which he has been informed
of the charges against hi m and given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of those charges;Provided that where it
is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon
him any such penalty, such penalty may be
imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced
during such inquiry and it shall not be
necessary to give such person any opportunity
of making representation on the penalty
proposed:
Provided further that this clause shall not
apply--
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
(a) where a person is dismissed or removed
or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct
which has led to hi s conviction on a criminal
charge; or
(b) where the authority empowered to
dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him
in rank is satisfied that for some reason, to be
recorded by that authority in writing, it is not
reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or
(c) where the President or the Governor, as
the case may be, is satisfied that in the
interest of the security of the State, it is not
expedient to hold such inquiry.
(3) If, in respect of any such person as
aforesaid, a question arises whether it is
reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as
is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon
of the authority empowered to dismiss or
remove such person or to reduce him in rank
shall be final."
7.8 It would also be fruitful to refer to the decision of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court recorded in Special Civil
Application No.889 of 2018 dated 05.09.2018 in the case of
Rahul Aydanbhai Vank (supra), whereby this Court has
observed that the employer is not allowed to hire and fire
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
even if the employee, may be ad-hoc or probationer, and the
services cannot be given a go-bye by one stroke of pen on
the ground of misconduct by casting stigma, without holding
a regular inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural
justice. The said decision has been challenged by the State
before the Division Bench of this Court, wherein the Division
Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.04.2019 dismissed
they said appeal of the State and observed in para : 9,
which is as under.
"9. When the appointment of the petitioner
had genesis in the Gujarat Civil Services
Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules,
1967, incorporation of certain terms and
conditions contractual in nature pale into
insignificance when the termination order is
expressly stigmatic as rightly concluded by the
learned Single Judge which required no lifting
of veil and therefore, the appeal is bereft of
merit."
8. From the above, this Court finds that the case of
the petitioner is on better footing than the above as the
petitioner is not an ad-hoc employee. The petitioner is a
selected by proper procedure and appointed on the post in
question. When the State authorities has reinstated the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
services of the petitioner though the criminal case is pending
against him before the learned competent Criminal Court, his
probation period is also extended for further two years, there
is no whisper about the extension of probation of the
petitioner during the year 2015 to 2019 or there is no
communication about extending the period of probation of the
petitioner, the impugned order terminating the services of the
petitioner dated 06.03.2019, that too without holding any
departmental inquiry and/or without issuing any notice or
memo and/or without affording any opportunity of being
heard i.e. without following the principles of natural justice,
is stigmatic, illegal and without following the due procedure
prescribed by law as well as it violates the constitutional
guarantee under Article 311. Therefore, it deserves to be
quashed and set set aside.
9. There cannot be any dispute with regard to the
law enunciated in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
relied upon by the learned AGP for the respondent State,
however, it cannot be helpful to the respondent any further
in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The present case does not fall within the purview of that
decision with such facts. Therefore, the present appeal
deserves to be allowed on its merit.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6931/2019 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/06/2025
undefined
10. In view of above, the present petition is allowed.
The impugned order passed by the respondent authorities
dated 06.03.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondents are directed to take back the petitioner in
service on his original post and position with continuity of
service with salary/wages for the interregnum as well as all
consequential benefits as if the order of termination was not
passed. The resultant monetary benefits shall be paid to the
petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of
receipt of the order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid
extent.
11. It would be open for the respondent authorities to
follow the prescribed procedure, if they feel proper, for their
dissatisfaction, if any, by following principles of natural
justice.
Direct service is permitted.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J)
M.H. DAVE
