Heard learned advocate Mr. Jal Soli Unwalla with learned advocate Mr. Jit Patel for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Nilesh Pandya for the respondent - Corporation.

2. The challenge in this petition is directed against order dated 18th May, 2016 passed against the petitioner terminating his services.

3. The petitioner was appointed on 21st July, 2012 on the post of Assistant Station Officer upon being selected by the Selection Committee. The conditions on which he was appointed were reflected in the appointment order. It appears that show-cause notice dated 28th April, 2016 came to be issued to the petitioner in which allegations about misconduct were levelled. It was stated that while serving in the Fire Brigade Branch of the Vadodara Municipal Corporation on the post of Assistant Station Officer, the petitioner misbehaved with the Telephone Operator and tried to injure the Telephone Operator physically. It was stated that petitioner was habituated to commit such misconduct and while serving on the sensitive post, he acted with negligence and carelessness in discharge of duties and committed breach of Gujarat State Civil Services (Discipline and Conduct) Rules, 1971, even while on probation.

3.1 The petitioner was called upon to explain as to why his services should not be terminated for the aforesaid acts and conducts in view of conditions mentioned in the letter appointment. The petitioner replied on 06th May, 2016 and submitted that he had discharged his duties on all occasions diligently and he was serving with due dedication. It was stated that all allegations mentioned in the show-cause notice were based on false submissions made by Telephone Operator one Jagdishbhai R. Patel. It was stated by the petitioner that he had grievance about his promotional right being denied in future, in respect of which he had addressed a letter to Vigilance Commissioner and that such act was not liked by the Corporation. It was stated by the petitioner that during his four years period of service there was no complaint against him and that on several occasions, he had received urgent calls and discharged his duties at the time of fire.

3.2 Then immediately followed the impugned order in which it was inter alia stated that the petitioner has committed breach of the Discipline and Conduct Rules, 1971, that he had behaved untoward with the Telephone Operator, that he had committed act of insubordination time and again, that he was not reporting to duty regularly and he was habituated to commit misconduct. It was stated that such conduct on part of the petitioner who was holding the sensitive post could not be accepted and that the petitioner had failed to discharge his duties by acting with negligence. With recitals as above, it was mentioned in the order that services of the petitioner was not liable to be continued and was required to be terminated. The order provided for termination of petitioner’s services and further required recovery of amount, if any due from the petitioner.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of termination was arbitrary and was not preceded by any inquiry. It was submitted that the petitioner was victimised, and that junior of the petitioner was favoured and was sent to training for promotional post of Divisional Fire Officer at Nagpur. It was stated that Special Civil Application No.5116 of 2016 was also filed by the petitioner raising grievance on the said count because of which, the respondent had developed hostile attitude against the petitioner and passed the order without holding any inquiry. It was submitted that order was punitive in nature and to further his submission, relied on the decision in Ratneshkumar Chaudhari v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Services [(2015) 15 SCC 151]. It was submitted that a punitive order founded on the allegations of misconduct could not have been passed without conducting inquiry.

4.1 Learned advocate for the respondent rel