The main legal point established is that the termination of a contractual employee based on allegations of misconduct requires a full-scale formal inquiry, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Manish Patel learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, and since this matter is covered by several decisions of this Court, wherein, the coordinate bench of this Court is followed the decision in case of State of Gujarat v. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 and allied matters, the matter is taken up for final hearing.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he was working as a Talati Cum Mantri on a contract basis for a tenure of five years. He was appointed by an order 10.04.2017, her term would have ended on 09.04.2022 by the impugned order dated 07.08.2020, her services were terminated on the ground that based on a resolution of the Panchayat, she undertook the work of deepening of the well without waiting for he sanction of the Taluka Development Officer. This was taken as a conduct unbecoming of the government servant. The order impugned further indicates that she made payments to the contractor which also amounted to misconduct.

4. Mr.Manish Patel learned counsel appearing for the respondent district Panchayat would submit that the decision in case of Chetan Rajgor (supra) it was followed in several orders by this passed by this Court will not apply to the facts of this case inasmuch as the petitioner was issued show cause notice to which she responded and therefore there was compliance of principles of natural justice.

5. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties and a decision rendered by this Court in Special Civil Application No.6373 of 2021, this Court considered the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2019, wherein, paragraphs of the relevant order of the is reproduced hereunder:

“5. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties, this court in a decision rendered Special Civil Application No. 7166 of 2019 has observed as under:

“5. In short, the controversy that arises to be adjudicated before this court is whether the termination of the employee, the petitioner who was engaged on contractual terms can be done in the manner that it was, merely by issuance of a show-cause notice or was a full fledged inquiry necessary preceding the action of termination. In the course of submissions therefore the decisions referred to by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mehta need to be considered. In the case of Rahul Vank (supra), this court vide oral order dated 05.09.2018 while considering the order of a similar nature where the appointment was on contractual terms and where the contest by the State also was on similar lines that the show-cause notice suffices the court held as under:

“5.3 All the aforesaid principles squarely apply in facts of the case of the present petitioner. The decision in Manishbhai Nayanbhai Mod (supra) came to be confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No.189 of 2018 decided on 20th February, 2018. In addition to the other reasoning endorsed to by the Division Bench, the following was also stated which stands in complete answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the respondents.

“4.1 … … … As a necessary corollary, when there is a breach of procedure of instituting full-fledged departmental inquiry, particularly, when termination order referred to following of Gujarat Civil Services [Discipline & Appeal] Rules, 1971, the issuance of show cause notice, receiving reply and then to take final decision to terminate services of an employee was unjust, unreasonable, arbitrary, in breach of the Rules, 1971, violative of principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution as it would not make any difference whether the employee was appointed temporarily for a fixed term on a fixed salary incorporating various conditions.”

5.3 When the order impugned in this petition is scanned and conside