A termination order based on allegations of misconduct without conducting a departmental inquiry is stigmatic and punitive in nature, requiring compliance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. This petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.07.2015, passed by Respondent No.1.

2. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Jit P. Patel, for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. R.C. Jani, for the Respondent.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed by Respondent No.1 on the post of Assistant Junior Clerk on 08.08.2008 by way of compassionate appointment, as the father of the petitioner expired on duty. The appointment of the petitioner was on fixed pay and for the period of five years only.

3.1 As per the knowledge of the petitioner, an exam being Course on Computer Concepts (in brief, ‘CCC’), which is a basic computer training course, was required to be passed for the purpose of regularization of services.

3.2 As per the say of the petitioner, the petitioner appeared for the said examination and he was issued a certificate on 05.02.2011.

3.3 It is the case of the petitioner that he has not obtained any benefit on the basis of the said certificate. It is also the case of the petitioner that as soon as he came to know that the said certificate is not genuine, he immediately wrote a letter to the Respondent-Authority and requested that the said certificate may not be considered for regularization of his services.

3.4 In the meantime, the petitioner passed CCC+ examination from a government recognized institution and he also produced the said certificate before the Respondent-authority.

4. At this stage, learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, appearing for the petitioner submitted that either without issuing any show-cause notice or conducting any departmental inquiry, the Respondent-Authority terminated his services.

4.1 Learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, pointed out that a private complaint, being Criminal Case No. 434 of 2015, has already been filed with the concerned Magisterial Court at Ahmedabad for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, the impugned order passed by Respondent No.1-Authorities without holding any departmental inquiry or without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner cannot be sustained.

4.1.1 A copy of the impugned order dated 22.07.2015 passed by the Respondent-Authority is produced at Page-11 of the compilation.

4.2 It was further submitted that the order dated 22.07.2015 is stigmatic in nature and therefore, the same cannot be termed as the simpliciter order of termination of services. In fact, the impugned order is stigmatic and punitive in nature, for which the Respondent-Authority were required to conduct a departmental inquiry.

4.3. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate, Mr. Patel, has placed reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, Dated: 17.02.2021, rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 270 of 2021.

4.4 It was, therefore, urged that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Jani, appearing for the Respondent-Authority strongly opposed this petition.

5.1 Referring to the the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Respondent-Authority, learned Advocate, Mr. Jani, invited the attention of this Court to the appointment letter of the petitioner, which is produced at Page-30 of the compilation, and submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the appointment order, the services of the petitioner can be terminated under certain circumstances, without either giving any notice or without conducting any departmental inquiry.

5.2 It was, further, submitted that the petitioner was required to pass CCC examination conducted by any government recognized institution. However, the petitioner, though, did not pass any such examination, he produced false / forged certificates and thereby, he tried to misguide the Respondent-Authority.

5.3 Learned Advocate, Mr. Jani, also referred to the documents, which are placed on record at Pages-62 and 63 o