JUDGMENT :

1. The present Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) by the original defendants against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.1994 passed by the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge of Panchmahal District at Godhra, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51 of 1994 whereby the Appeal filed by the original plaintiff came to be allowed and the judgment and decree dated 4.10.1994 of the trial Court passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 52 of 1986 came to be set-aside.

2. The Appellant is the defendant before the trial Court and the respondent is the plaintiff before the trial Court. For the brevity and convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment as per the character assigned to them before the trial Court i.e. defendant and plaintiff respectively.

3. The present appeal has been admitted on 17.8.2021 on the following two substantial questions of law :

1. Whether the appellant Company can said to be 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, inspite of being format under Companies Act, 1956?

2. Whether the respondent Plaintiff can be granted relief under the Specific Relief Act, which is a relief in equity?

4. The brief facts of the matter are as under:

4.1 The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and injunction, inter alia, contending that he was serving as Project Supervisor in the Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation Limited i.e. the defendant since last 8 years. It is contended that the plaintiff was serving honestly and there was no any adverse remarks passed against him in past and his service was clean and dot-less. It is also contended that there was not a single complaint against him.

4.2 It is contended that the defendants were trying to harass the plaintiff for some reasons and also tried to relieve him on any account. It is contended that the defendants issued show-cause notice to the plaintiff on 5.6.1994 levelling the charges of monetary misappropriation, etc. It is contended that as certain documents were required to reply the said Notice, the plaintiff demanded the documents by his letter dated 19.10.1984. It is contended by the plaintiff that no such documents were supplied to him. That in January, 1985, a preliminary inquiry was held in the Office of the defendant No.1 wherein oral statements of plaintiff was recorded and thereafter certain witnesses were called and statement of them were recorded in absence of the plaintiff.

4.3 It is contended that thereafter, the preliminary inquiry officer submitted his report, however, no regular inquiry was conducted nor any witnesses were examined nor any documents were produced in the evidence. It is also contended that the documents were also not supplied to the plaintiff. But straightway, the defendant No.1 sent a letter No. Mahak/ Inquiry/434/7205 dated 15.5.1985 in the form of show-cause notice, stating that why plaintiff should not be terminated from the service of the respondent i.e. Gujarat State Forest Development Corporation Limited. The plaintiff replied the same in detailed and he demanded personal hearing. It is contended by the plaintiff that no opportunity of being heard was extended to him. Thereafter, on 23.3.1986, he suddenly received a sealed cover from the defendants bearing No. 6393 and on opening the said cover, the plaintiff found that the Manager (Technical) instructed the defendant No.2 to relieve the plaintiff. That, he requested defendant about the miserable condition and financial constrain of his family and to consider his case even on humanitarian ground.

4.4 It is alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant has not followed the principles of natural justice by not supplying the documents which were sought by him for tendering his reply to original notice and by not taking regular/ full-fledged inquiry after a preliminary inquiry and thereby not giving any chance to cross-examine the witnesses and also not providing personal hearing to the plaintiff though he had sought