ORDER :

1. Heard learned AGP Mr. Krutik Parikh for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Jit Patel for the respondent appearing for the respondent-original petitioner.

2. Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.03.2022 of the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination dated 23.09.2020 passed against the respondent-original petitioner.

2.1 The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits on the same terms and conditions on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar, Class-III. Continuity of service for the interregnum period with all consequential benefits were also directed to be paid. However, reinstatement of the petitioner was provided upto the expiry of original tenure of engagement as per the order of appointment.

3. The petitioner was Deputy Mamlatdar. The competent authority passed order dated 23.09.2020 of removal of the petitioner from service on the ground that FIR was lodged against the petitioner for the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly taking bribe. It was recorded in the termination order that the petitioner who was a fixed term employee had committed serious misconduct and therefore his contractual services were liable to be terminated. Thus, in the said order, it was mentioned that the petitioner committed misconduct of accepting bribe, rendering the order to be stigmatic.

3.1 Learned Single Judge recorded that a bare reading of the contents of the termination order showed that the foundation of the impugned order was on the alleged misconduct of demanding and accepting bribe for which aforesaid First Information Report was registered. As the stigmatic order was passed without holding full fledged departmental inquiry, in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 and allied matters decided on 24.7.2020, wherein the Division Bench confirmed the decision rendered in State of Gujarat and Others vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor, set aside the order of termination and granted the relief.

3.2 The decision in Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor (supra) came to be considered and was affirmed by the Division Bench in Deputy District Development Officer vs. Devatbhai Ramsibhai Bhoda being Letters Patent Appeal No. 99 of 2021 decided on 8.6.2021, in which the identical issue was involved about terminating the services of the fixed time appointee on fixed salary on the ground of misconduct and casting stigma.

3.3 The position of law discussed in Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor (supra) came to be highlighted and reiterated by the Division Bench as under:

“8.1 In the cognate matter also, almost similar observations are visible and as such, we do not propose to over burden the present order. These observations if to be examined in the background of present fact situation, the same are found to be just and proper. It appears here that the original petitioners were dealt with by issuance of show cause notice with respect to serious charges levelled against them and the notice was given stating as to why in terms of their appointment, they may not be dismissed from the services. Now, this show cause notice appears to have been replied at length by the original petitioners and subsequently, by giving a brief opportunity, without conducting full-scale departmental inquiry, an order of dismissal came to be passed. This procedure which has been adopted by the department against both the original petitioners and undisputedly, no departmental inquiry having been conducted against them, the learned Single Judge, on the basis of relevant proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, was justified in his view that in the absence of full-scale departmental inquiry, the services of the writ petitioners cannot be terminated in the manner in which it has been put to an end. We see no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, particularly having gone th