The Court emphasized the importance of providing show cause notices before termination and the right of employees to respond to internal inquiry reports.

JUDGMENT :

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr.Soaham Joshi learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1-State, Mr.Rutvij Bhatt learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.2 and Mr.H.S.Munshaw learned advocate waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.3.

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

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have approached this Court apprehending their termination as no show cause notices even received by the petitioners. This Court on 04.07.2019, had passed the following order:

“Heard learned advocate Mr. Nirav Sanghavi for the petitioners and learned Assistant Government Pleader Ms. Krina Calla for the respondent State, who appeared upon service of copy of the petition in advance.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioners stated that the facts of the case and issue involved is similar and identical to one involved in Patel Jayminkumar Pankajkumar vs. State of Gujarat being Special Civil Application No. 10471 of 2019 in which order was passed on 19.6.2019.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners assert to state that the petitioners are present in service. He, therefore, submits that similar order as passed in Special Civil Application No.20729 of 2018, which is by similarly situated persons, may be passed in the present matter.

4. Referring to the controversy in the petition, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the order dated 11.09.2018 of the Division Bench of this Court in Devubha Hetubha Vaghela vs. State of Gujarat, being Letters Patent Appeal No.1183 of 2018 in which case the facts are stated to be akin to the facts involved in the present controversy. The order of the Division Bench in Devubha Hetubha Vaghela (supra) reads as under,

“1. Heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned advocate for the appellants.

2. The Supreme Court by an order dated 10.08.2018 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. (s).26261 of 2018 in the case of Hemant Kumar Rosanlal Lodha v. District Panchayat Selection Board and others has observed thus;

“Mr. R. Basant, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that in case of Sunrise University, Rajasthan, and other similarly placed Universities, the Division Bench has referred the matter to the concerned authorities for inquiry and the same yardstick should have been adopted in the case of Manav Bharti University, Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Having regard to the submission, issue Notice.”

3. In view of the above, issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on 24.09.2018. In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo qua the appellants herein. Direct service is permitted.”

5. In view of the above aspects emerging, there shall be Notice returnable on 2.8.2019. The respondents are directed to maintain status-quo qua the petitioners herein till the next date.

Direct service is permitted for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. For respondent NO.4, service is allowed to be effected through Registered A.D. Post at the cost of the petitioner in addition to normal mode of service.”

4. Now the issue has been decided by Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.1411 of 2018 and allied matters.

5. The operative portion of the order reads as under:

“ORDER

(i) Letters Patent Appeals and Special Civil Applications stand disposed of.

(ii) As far as Special Civil Application Nos.7118 of 2020, 7364 of 2020, 10471 of 2019, 17283 of 2018 and 20729 of 2018 are concerned, they are hereby allowed and notice of termination issued to writ applicants is ordered to be treated as show cause notice and reply be submitted by the writ applicants and thereafter, same be adjudicated by respective Panchayats in accordance with law.

(iii) Orders passed by the learned Single Judge in setting aside the order of termination are sustained. However, order directin