JUDGMENT :

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent - State while Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel waives service of notice of Rule for the respondent No.3.

(2.) With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing today.

(3.) By way of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Programme Officer under the Taluka Panchayat, Godhra has been terminated from services by an order dated 05.07.2021. The petitioner was appointed as APO by an order dated 21.12.2015 for a period of 11 months on fixed pay basis. His appointment was subsequently extended in the year 2018 by an order dated 04.01.2018. The petitioner has been continued in service. By the impugned order, the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance.

(4.) Mr. Asthavadi, learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on a decision in the case of State of Gujarat v. Chetan Rajgor rendered in LPA No.1596 of 2019 and LPA No.841 of 2019 and submit that the order is stigmatic.

(5.) Mr. Munshaw, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 would submit that the appointment was purely on temporary basis for 11 months on fixed pay. The petitioner was issued several communications on 23.10.2020, 8.12.2020, 31.1.2021, 8.3.2021 to improve his performance. Since he did not improve, salary cut of two days was imposed. Mr. Munshaw would invite the Court's attention to the notices issued annexed to the reply. Reading the notices would indicate that the petitioner was asked to improve his performance and it was alleged that he was ignoring his duties.

(6.) For the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of the decision dated 15.04.2019 passed in LPA No.841 of 2019 in the case of State of Gujarat v. Rahul Aydanbhai Vank are reproduced hereunder:

"4.2 Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chaitanya Prakash and Another vs. H. Omlarappa reported in (2010) 2 SCC 623 wherein termination of an employee was on the ground of unsatisfactory performance for which repeated notices were issued but the employee failed to improve upon and such act on the part of the employer was held to be not stigmatic. In the above decision, the Apex Court placed reliance on other decisions of the Apex Court including the decisions in the cases of Abhijit Gupta vs. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences [(2006) 4 SCC 469] and Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences [(2002) 1 SCC 520 wherein the Apex Court reiterated the principle to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive or not by ascertaining that whether prior to termination there was (a) full-scale formal inquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt and if all three factors as above are present, the termination is to be held as punitive irrespective of the termination order. Conversely, if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination is to be upheld. Therefore, according to learned Assistant Government Pleader, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. As against above, Mr. Gautam Joshi, learned advocate appearing for respondent - original petitioner would contend that the learned Single Judge threadbare addressed to the issues involved in the writ petition and upon assigning reasons, arrived at a finding of stigmatic nature of order of termination and that was found even without lifting the veil as the order of termination on the face of it was containing plethora of misconducts which formed the foundation for passing the order of termination. He submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was supported by various decisions of the Apex Court and therefore warrants no interferen