1. Heard learned senior advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr.Samir Gohil for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.K.M. Antani for the respondents.

2. The services of the petitioner who was appointed as Superintendent, Class-I at the Community Health Center, Radhanpur, District Patan on ad hoc basis came to be terminated by order dated 09th May, 2017 on the ground that the petitioner had committed breach of provisions of the Pre-conception and Pre- Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994.

3. From the letter of appointment dated 27th November, 2013, it could be seen that the petitioner was appointed on the above post in the pay-scale of Rs.15600-39100 and his appointment was for a period of one year or until the regularly selected candidate from Gujarat Public Service Commission was available. The other conditions in the appointment letter were that the candidate appointed under the order shall have to appear in the selection process which may be conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission (GPSC) and if he fails to appear in the process or remains absent in the interview, his services would be liable to be put an end. It was also a condition incorporated in the appointment letter that if the petitioner was found irregular or indisciplined or negligent, then in such case, services could be dispensed with without notice.

3.1 The posting order came to be issued to the petitioner and petitioner joined the services. It is not in dispute that as per the conditions of the appointment letter, petitioner has passed the GPSC examination, in which he was found qualified for the appointment to stand at merit No.12.

3.2 It appears that on 20th January, 2017 a criminal complaint was lodged against the petitioner under the Pre-conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). As a result of filing of criminal complaint, respondent passed Resolution dated 09th May, 2017 proceeding to terminate the services of the petitioner on the ground of criminal case which is the impugned order. It was passed, as already noticed, on the footing that petitioner has committed breach of the provisions of the said Act.

4. Learned senior advocate for the petitioner assailed the impugned order to submit that the impugned order cast stigma on the petitioner as it rested on the ground that the petitioner had committed breach of the provisions of the Act. According to learned senior advocate, the order was punitive and could not have been passed without holding regular departmental inquiry and by complying with the principles of natural justice.

4.1 On the other hand, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents relied on affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It was submitted that the petitioner had no right to continue on the post and his appointment was subject to the conditions provided for in the order of appointment. According to his submission, the ground mentioned in the impugned order could not have been viewed as stigmatic. He submitted that criminal complaint was filed against the petitioner for the breach of provisions of the Act and on that basis, the suitability of the petitioner to retain him in service was assessed and consequentially the impugned order was passed.

4.2 In the affidavit-in-reply, it was contended that during the tenure of ad hoc service of the petitioner and on 20th January, 2017, criminal complaint was filed and the petitioner was arrested by the authorities in the State of Rajasthan on 20th January, 2017 and was released on 23rd January, 2017. It was stated that the Sonography machine of Community Health Center in Radhanpur was sealed by the Rajasthan police. It was sought to be asserted that termination was in the lines with the appointment letter as the petitioner’s tenure was ad hoc. It was submitted that the authorities had power to put an end to the a