JUDGMENT :

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Hemang Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent waives service of notice of rule.

(2.) In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 21.08.2019 by which he has been dismissed from service.

(3.) Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Registrar on 25.10.2010. Thereafter, as the post of Registrar fell vacant, the petitioner was so appointed on 28.01.2014. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 - Gujarat State Pharmacy Council was receiving various applications for registration of Pharmacists from candidates who had cleared their examination from a University outside the State. A sub-committee of the Council held a meeting and it was decided to request the Pharmacy Council of India to conduct a surprise inspection of various institutes and Universities situated outside Gujarat. It was also decided to request the Pharmacy Council of India to carry out the inspection.

3.1 At the 35th meeting of the Executive Committee held on 16.07.2018, the Executive Committee decided to do verification of the students and their degrees in context of the institutions from which they had undertaken the course. The committee visited certain colleges namely the Pacific College of Pharmacy, Malwa College of Pharmacy and Sunrise College of Pharmacy and submitted a report with regard to the irregularities in such institutions. This was in context of the verification of the authenticity of the candidates who had applied to the Pharmacy Council.

3.2 On 18.09.2018, at its meeting, the Executive Committee decided to initiate action against these institutions and it was further resolved to cover agents and other persons who are involved in these activities. A resolution was therefore passed that a complaint be filed. At the 36th meeting of the Executive Committee, it was therefore decided accordingly. As a result of the resolutions of the Executive Committee, to initiate actions against these institutions, the petitioner as the Additional Registrar addressed a detailed police complaint on 12.10.2018 to the Director General of Police, CID Crime.

In the meanwhile, on 21.01.2019, an email was received from the Pharmacy Council of India informing the Council - respondent no. 1 herein that the State Pharmacy Council had no authority to inspect Pharmacy Institutes under Sections 12 and 16 of The Pharmacy Act 1948. The Pharmacy Council of India therefore directed the Pharmacy Council of Gujarat to restrict its activities in providing registration to pharmacists in order to maintain the sanctity of the Act. Under the signature of the petitioner, the Council responded on 29.01.2019 stating that it had only requested the candidates for verification of documents and had not demanded any information that would go against the provisions of Sections 12 and 16 of the Pharmacy Act. A letter was also addressed by the Pharmacy Council of India on 20.03.2019 reiterating that the Gujarat State Pharmacy Council should restrict its activities in accordance with the mandate of the Pharmacy Act.

3.3 By virtue of the two letters of the Pharmacy Council of India, considering the fact that the respondent no. 1 had no authority to carry out inspection of the college and their activities were restricted only to provide registration to students, and with a view to avoid any conflict between the Pharmacy Council of India and the State Pharmacy Council as the Executive Committee was not inclined to include and circulate the agenda with regard to the conflict in the two institutions, the petitioner addressed a letter on 25.04.2019 to the police authorities that the complaint that was filed may be withdrawn. This letter of 25.04.2019 was written by the petitioner to the Police Inspector, CID Crime for withdrawing the complaint was not appreciated by the Pharmacy Council and a show-cause notice was issued to the pet