Point of law: Termination of service - termination order that the foundation of the impugned order was alleged misconduct of demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.1,000/-, for which afore-mentioned F.I.R. was registered. Thus, the order in question could be treated as stigmatic. It is a matter of fact that the termination order was passed without following principles of natural justice and without holding any full scale departmental inquiry and therefore, the position of law as reproduced herein above would operate to grant relief in favour of the petitioner.

ORDER :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellants herein (original respondents) have challenged the judgment dated 23.12.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 13282 of 2019, whereby, while allowing the petition, the learned Single Judge quashed and set aside the order dated 17.12.2016 passed by the appellant no.2 herein (original respondent no.2) and directed to reinstate the respondent herein (original petitioner) within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt of the judgment on the original post with similar service conditions to make up total five years period as per the original appointment and further held that the respondent herein (original petitioner) shall not be entitled to any monetary benefits or salary for the intervening period and also held that the present appellants (original respondents) are not precluded from proceeding against the present respondent (original petitioner) in accordance with law for the alleged misconduct.

2. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment dated 23.12.2020, the appellants have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

3. The name of the parties are mentioned in this order as per their status in the petition.

4. The brief facts giving rise for filing of this appeal are stated as under:

4.1. The petitioner was appointed on 26.09.2012 after due selection procedure undertaken by the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board and was appointed on the post of Revenue Clerk. His appointment was on fixed pay for a period of five years. The petitioner joined services on 29.09.2012. Subsequently, an F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner on 22.12.2015 being C.R. No. I-12 of 2015 before the ACB Police Station, Mehsana for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner was arrested in connection with the aforesaid F.I.R. and subsequently, vide order passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Application (for regular bail) No. 145 of 2016 dated 06.01.2016, he was enlarged on regular bail.

4.2. Since, the F.I.R. under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was registered against the petitioner, the petitioner was suspended initially from the service and thereafter, a show cause notice dated 19.03.2016 was issued by the original respondents asking the petitioner (respondent herein) as to why his service which is of contractual nature should not be terminated, in view of the serious misconduct committed by the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice dated 19.03.2016 vide his reply dated 04.04.2016 and pleaded innocence.

4.3. The respondent no.2 vide order dated 17.12.2016, after considering the reply tendered by the petitioner (respondent herein) dated 04.04.2016 terminated the services of the petitioner, in view of seriousness of misconduct committed by the petitioner.

4.4. The original petitioner (present respondent) challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.12.2016 before the learned Single Judge of this Court by filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 13282 of 2019 and the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 23.12.2020 allowed the petition as stated in the foregoing paragraph.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 23.12.2020, the appellants (original respondents) have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.

6. We have heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Dhawan Jayswal for the appellants-State and learned advocate Mr. Jit P. Patel for the respondent herein through video conferencing.

7. Learned AGP has submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error by not appreciating the fact that the petitioner’s (respondent herein) employment was of contractual nature and hence, in view of such misconduct alleged against the petitioner and considering the fact that the petitioner’s appointment is of contractual nature, even without full