JUDGMENT :

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State.

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 case of the petitioner is that the order of termination dated 02.11.2021 is stigmatic inasmuch as the same has been passed without departmental proceedings based on an FIR lodged against the petitioner.

4. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was appointed as Revenue Talati on 26.09.2016 for a period of 5 years. The petitioner was appointed as a Revenue Talati on a fixed term of five years by his appointment on a fixed pay on a condition that he undergoes pre-service training examination. His name was sent for pre-service training examination but before he could appear in such examination, his services have been terminated.

5. Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order of termination is stigmatic. He 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.

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 interference. He submitted that accordingly the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

6. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, upon appreciation of rival submissions viz-a-viz challenge to the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the order of termination came to be quashed and set aside and consequential directions of reinstatement etc is issued, we find that order dated 23.09.2016 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forest refer to followi