JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2010 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner at his original post as Chief Assistant.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

2.1. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Anganwadi Worker in the year 1995 under the Central Government I.C.D.S Scheme upon certain terms and conditions. It is the case of the petitioner that after completion of 12 years' service period, the promotion of the petitioner was due to the post of Chief Assistant (Mukhya Sevika), and, therefore, by maintaining a seniority list amongst the other Anganwadi Worker, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Mukhya Sevika, vide order dated 28.09.2007 on ad hoc basis for the term of five years. Thereafter, on 10.06.2010, she was served with a show cause notice issued by the respondent No. 3-District Panchayat, Kheda, inter alia, calling explanation for various misconducts committed by her.

2.2. It is also the case of the petitioner that after receiving the notice, she has submitted a reply to the respondent No. 3 by giving various reason. The petitioner further sought permission for the appointment of a Legal Assistant for defending her case accordingly, but the said request was turned own by the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 16.07.2010 on the ground that the service of the petitioner is not covered under the Gujarat Panchayat (Discipline & Conduct) Rules, 1997. Thereafter, accordingly a reply was filed by the petitioner without taking help of Legal Assistant from respondent No. 3 and further a letter was received by the petitioner by denying the request of the petitioner for the Legal Assistant.

2.3. It is the case of the petitioner that the allegation leveled against the petitioner was published in a local newspaper prior to issuing the notice to the petitioner, and thereafter reading the same various Anganwadi Workers serving under the petitioner's area had made a representation to the respondent No. 3 by denying all the allegations made against the petitioner. On 09.08.2010, the petitioner remained present before the respondent No. 3 and after necessary inquiry, the petitioner was terminated from service by order dated 02.10.2010. Pursuant to the order passed by the respondent No. 3, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent No. 2 on 16.12.2010. After considering the reply, rejoinder and detail evidences laid down by both parties, the said appeal was disposed of returning the entire file to the petitioner on the ground of jurisdiction by the respondent No. 2.

3. Learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt appearing for the petitioner submitted that while passing the termination order, no departmental inquiry has been held by the respondent no. 3. She has submitted that the termination of the petitioner was based on the misconducts, hence a regular departmental inquiry was necessitated. She submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent No. 1 and her service is squarely covered under the rules of the Gujarat Panchayat (Discipline & Conduct) Rules, 1997 and, therefore, conditions mentioned in the appointment order are similar with those employees appointed regularly under the respondent No. 1, except salary and hence, for such termination, it is necessary to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioner, which is admittedly not initiated by the respondents and only on this ground the order passed below is required to be quashed. She further submitted that as per the judgments of the Division Bench dated 20.02.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no. 189 of 2018, and in the judgment dated 15.04.2019, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 841 of 2019, on an similar issue, wherein the Division Bench, while examining the cases of the termination of contractual and temporary empl