JUDGMENT :

Biren Vaishnav, J.

1. RULE returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. Mr. Meet Thakkar learned AGP waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent - State.

2. The short challenge in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is the order of termination dated 16.02.2019, by which, the services of the petitioner have been terminated without notice on 11.09.2018 on the basis of an FIR lodged against him and the same was without holding departmental proceedings against him.

3. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as a Jail Sahayak for the period of five years on contractual basis. He was arraigned in an ACB trap and an FIR being C.R. No. I - 06 of 2018 dated 19.08.2018 was lodged with the ACB, Surendranagar Police Station under Section 7, 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. Mr. Jigar Gadhvi would rely on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 dated 24.07.2020.

5. Mr. Meet Thakkar learned AGP would draw the attention of the Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2. He would submit that the petitioner was appointed on a contractual basis for a period of five years. Condition No. 22 of the appointment order dated 04.09.2015 clearly stipulated that the petitioner can be removed from service on the grounds of misconduct by giving one month's salary or one month notice. It was in fact given on 11.09.2018. In other words, the submission of the learned AGP would be that in due compliance of the terms of the appointment, the services of the petitioner were terminated.

6. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 761 of 2021 dated 24.12.2021. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as under:

"Heard learned advocate Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by learned advocate Ms. Srushti Thula for the appellants, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Sahil Trivedi for the respondent State and its authorities and learned advocate Mr. Hemant Munshaw for the respondent No. 3, at length.

2. The appellants in this Letters Patent Appeal are the original petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 and 9. The appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 26th March, 2019 of learned single Judge whereby the petition came to be disposed of with certain observations.

2.1 In the Special Civil Application, what was prayed by the appellants petitioners was to set aside order dated 16th October, 2003 passed by the District Primary Education Officer. It was further prayed to direct the respondent District Primary Education officer to place the petitioners as Vidhyasahayaks in a regular pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000 after completion of two years of their service as Vidhyasahayaks. It was also prayed to reinstate the petitioners on the post of Vidhyasahayaks with full back wages and with all service benefits, as if their services were never terminated.

3. Noticing the basic facts, the petitioners were appointed as Vidhyasahayaks in fixed pay of Rs. 2500/-. They had put in more than two years. It is the case that one Rameshbhai Patel who was Assistant Teacher, impressed upon the petitioners that he had relation with the Education Minister and could obtain for the petitioners recommendation for transfer. He collected applications from the petitioners for transfer. It was stated that thereafter, the Minister called the petitioners in the chamber on a particular day. The said Rameshbhai Patel prepared false recommendation letters purported to have written by the Education Minister. The petitioners accordingly faced action by the District Primary Education Officer.

3.1 The District Primary Education Officer passed order of termination against the petitioners on 16th October, 2003. It was on the ground that the petitioners had submitted applicatio