The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Rule 10(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1967, the petitioner's services should be treated as deemed confirmed after the maximum extended period of probation.

JUDGMENT :

(1) Rule, returnable forthwith. Ms. Surbhi Bhati, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respondents.

(2) With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the petition was taken up for its final disposal.

(3) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 2nd March, 2019, by which, the service of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that during the course of his probation, his conduct was not good.

(4) The facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Mamlatdar in the Pay Scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/- vide Notification dated 6th May, 2011. The first posting of the petitioner was as an Administrator of the trust of Dwarkadhish temple at Dwarka. Petitioner resumed his duties on 9th May, 2011. On 19th March, 2012, the petitioner was transferred to Surendranagar. During his course of his service, the petitioner passed his lower level as well as higher level departmental examinations. The period of probation of the petitioner was extended after it was over on 8th May, 2013. Initially, it was extended for a period of one year till 8th May, 2014 vide order dated 3.2.2014. Thereafter, it was extended for a period of six months till 8.11.2014.

(5) A charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 22.1.2013 levelling 3 charges against the petitioner, for which, a penalty was imposed on 24th June, 2016 of stoppage of one increment for two years without future effect. Vide a second charge-sheet dated 3rd February, 2014, the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer to which the Disciplinary Authority agreed vide order dated 12th March, 2015. The order of penalty imposed by virtue of the first charge-sheet was never implemented. The petitioner continued as such till the order of termination was passed on 2nd March, 2019.

(6) Mr. Hriday Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order dated 2nd March, 2019 putting the services of the petitioner to an end on the ground that his services as a probationer were not required to be continued based on the assessment of his Annual Confidential Reports and his conduct, is an order which is illegal. He would submit that it is illegal for the following grounds:

(i) According to the submission of Mr.Buch, he was appointed as a Mamlatdar by an order dated 24th June, 2011. Relying on Rule 10(A) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment) General Rules, 1967, Mr.Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the appointing authority can extend period of probation for a further period of two years, which was done in the present case by extending the period twice, for a total period of two and half years. Thereafter, there was no order of extending his probation till the year 2019. Accordingly, it was a case where the petitioner ought to have been treated as deemed confirmed and the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated on the basis of he being a probationer.

(ii) As far as disciplinary proceedings are concerned, Mr.Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that for the first charge-sheet, the order of stoppage of increment could not be implemented on the ground that the respondent perceived that since the petitioner was a probationer and was not drawing increments, the penalty could not be inflicted. As far as the second charge is concerned since the petitioner was already exonerated, it was never implemented and, therefore, these grounds cannot be taken as grounds for termination. As far as ACRs are concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that for the period from 2011-12 to 2014-15, the respondent looked into the ACRs for the period from 26.9.2012 to 31.3.2013. For that period, the Collector did not accept the ACRs and, in fact accepted the explanation of the petitioner. For the years 2016-18, no ACRs were supplied. Mr. Buch, lea