Pont of Law: whenever charges are levelled when the action is found to be stigmatic, full-scale departmental inquiry deserves to be undertaken against a contractual employee on fixed salary.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1 Appellant is the original respondent, who is aggrieved by the judgement and order passed by the learned Single Judge on 27.09.2019 in Special Civil Application No. 9447 of 2019, whereby it quashed and set aside the termination order dated 01.04.2019 passed by the District Development Officer, Panchmahal District Panchayat. The Court also directed reinstatement of respondent within the period eight weeks on the original post with continuity of service and 100% salary for the interregnum period along with consequential benefits.

2 According to the appellant, respondent had been appointed as Additional Assistant Engineer (Civil), Class-III at Halol on 01.06.2018 on contractual basis with a fixed salary for the period of five years. The services were liable to be terminated in the case of misconduct or indiscipline and breach of conditions of Gujarat Panchayat Service [Discipline and Appeal] Rules, 1998.

3. It is averred and alleged that respondent was caught red handed by Anti Corruption Bureau, while accepting a bribe of Rs.30,000/- on 18.02.2019, which was within one year of appointment order. This incident was brought to the notice through a communication dated 28.03.2019. It was also noticed that he was in police custody from 19.02.2019 to 28.02.2019 and was enlarged on regular bail pursuant to the order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Halol, District: Panchmahal. His explanation was called for on 20.03.2019 by issuing a notice as to why his services be not terminated. As his involvement was in a serious case of accepting the bribe, assessment of his performance at the end of every year is a must.

4. He was given a personal hearing on 25.03.2019. After giving him due opportunity of hearing, on the strength of the terms and conditions of the appointment order and noticing the gross misconduct on the part of taking bribe, his services came to be terminated on 01.05.2019. this was challenged by the original petitioner, where the Court passed the aforementioned order.

5. According to the appellant, Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009, issued by the Government of Gujarat through the General Administration Department provides that during the contractual period, appointee is not to be treated at par with regular and permanent employee and is entitled to equal treatment to a regular employee only on completion of contractual period. The resolution dated 22.11.2017 also provides for taking necessary actions in case of gross misconduct and, therefore, there will be a requirement of interference by this Court.

6. We have heard Mr.H.S. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant at length. He has taken us through the judgement and order passed by the Single Bench of this Court. According to him, it is a serious case of gross misconduct, as he has taken bribe within one year of his service, where he demanded illegal gratification of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant, who is a Sarpanch at Maswad Gram Panchayat, for clearing the bill of the official work done and it is something which is extremely serious and deserves no sympathy. He was on the post of Additional Assistant Engineer, Halol and his payment was done on 01.06.2018. First Information Report came to be registered on 19.02.2019 being CR.No.I-03 of 2019 registered with ACB police station, Godhra, District: Panchmahal against the opponent respondent by the Sarpanch himself. His arrest was also effected and he was also remanded to the police custody vide order dated 28.02.2019. He was released after 10 days of being in the police custody. According to Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for the appellant, the show cause notice was already issued on 20.03.2019 and that is sufficient compliance so far as contractual employees are concerned. He also had shown his concern about the persons accepting bribe even before the completion of the contractual period and he also has pointed out that the work of Rs.1,18,000/- was carried out and in that relation, he