The main legal point established is that the termination of a contractual employee based on allegations of misconduct requires a full-scale departmental inquiry, as per the 1971 Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules and previous court decisions.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. The petitioner by way of this petition has prayed for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 23.06.2021 by the respondent no. 2 terminating the service of the petitioner and further to direct the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with all consequential benefits.

3. Ms. Niyati Juthani, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner shall submit that the petitioner was appointed on 23.02.2018 on contractual basis and by way of the impugned communication his services were terminated. She would submit that no departmental inquiry was held before the impugned termination. Ms. Juthani shall draw the attention of this court to an order passed by this court in case of similar facts. The order dated 22.07.2022 so passed in Special Civil Application No. 15083 of 2021 reads as under :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr. Utkarsh Sharma learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.4. Though served, nobody appears for respondent nos.3 and 5.

2. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 11.08.2021 passed by Director of District Rural Development Agency – respondent no.4, by virtue of which, services of the petitioner who was working as a contractual employee for 11 months, were terminated on 12.08.2021 after having worked for 12 years.

3. Mr. Shalin Mehta learned Senior Advocate appearing with Ms. Aditi Raol would submit that the issue is covered by the decision rendered in case of State of Gujarat v. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor decided on 24.07.2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019.

4. Mr. H.S. Munshaw learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4 submits that based on a report dated 21.05.2019 and irregularities the authorities decided not to renew the contract of the petitioner which had already expired on 31.10.2020 and relieved the petitioner from the post of Assistant Programme Officer w.e.f. 12.08.2021 through order dated 11.08.2021. Since the contract was already over non-extension would not involve termination being stigmatic.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, what is evident is that petitioner was appointed on contract basis which appointment was made on 27.10.2009 continued till his services were discontinued on 12.08.2021 based on order passed by respondent no.4 on 11.08.2021 which attributed certain lapses on behalf of the petitioner.

6. The Division Bench while in Letters Patent Appeal No.983 of 2017 in Special Civil Application No.13621 of 2014 dated 24.04.2018 was considering the contractual appointments and regularization of MNREGA Scheme appointees. Paragraph nos.52.1 and 52.2 of the order of the learned Single Judge were quoted by the Division Bench which read as under:

“52.1. The prayer of the petitioners to regularise their contractual services and make them permanent on the establishment is rejected. Limited immunity that is made available to the petitioners is by allowing them to continue on their contractual employment and not to be replaced by other set of contractual employees on ad-hocism. The petitioners shall be continued in the existing cadre as long as the said Scheme continues, but purely on contractual basis and such employment shall be co-terminus with the scheme, subject to evaluation of their performance, service and disciplinary rules as may be made applicable to them. The respondent-State shall insist on periodical upgradation of knowledge, improvisation of technical skill and overall preparedness on the subject, so also on computerisation.

52.2. The challenge to the Government Resolutions dated December 23, 2013 and August 28, 2014 and the consequential process of recruitment undertaken in the year 2014 pursuant to the public advertisement dated August 28, 2014, succeeds qua the petitioners only. Those petitioner who have qualifi