JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 26.9.2014, which is confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 5.5.2018 whereby the petitioner was terminated and that action was held to be legal and valid by the appellate authority. The petitioner has also prayed for reinstatement with all consequential benefits, including back wages.

2. Heard learned advocate Mr.R.K.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate for the respondent No.2 and Ms.Forum U. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1.

3. With the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the matter was heard finally. Hence, Rule. Learned advocate Mr.H.S.Munshaw waives service of Rule for respondent No.2 and Ms.Forum U. Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an Ex-Army man and was appointed as Talati-cum-Mantri (Gram Panchayat Mantri) on a fixed salary vide order dated 31.3.2008 for a period of 5 years on contractual basis. The appointment of the petitioner was made under Section 227 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act and as per the condition 15 of the appointment order, the petitioner was entitled for being considered for placing him under regular pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 on successful completion of 5 years on the basis of the certificate issued by the District Development Officer recording his satisfaction about the services rendered by the petitioner.

4.1 The petitioner’s contractual appointment period ended in the month of April, 2013 as the petitioner completed 5 years of service. However, the record does not indicate nor learned advocates Mr.R.K.Mishra or Mr.H.S.Munshaw appearing for the rival parties could point out or could submit anything on the basis of the instructions that any other order was issued in favour of the petitioner extending his contractual appointment. However, the fact remains that the petitioner continued to serve on the said post even after completion of 5 years contractual period. It is an admitted position that upon completion of 5 years, the District Development Officer did not recommend the case of the petitioner for absorbing him in the pay scale of Rs.3050-4590 by giving a certificate recording his satisfaction.

4.2 In the meantime, an FIR was registered against the petitioner at Dhaboda Police Station in Chanasma Taluka being FIR No.I-53 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 465 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the petitioner has fraudulently prepared a bogus creamy layer certificate and on the basis of the same the petitioner had obtained job as Talati cum Mantri.

4.3 Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, proceedings as per the criminal low took place and thereafter a show cause notice dated 21.10.2013 was issued by the District Development Officer (Panchayat), Patan District Panchayat on the basis of the report submitted by the Taluka Development officer, Chanasma, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner has committed various financial irregularities, and therefore, the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why he should not be terminated from service on the ground of negligence and financial misappropriation.

4.4 The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice. However, ultimately the petitioner was terminated from services vide order dated 26.9.2014 passed by the District Development Officer, Patan District Panchayat. Against the order of termination dated 26.9.2014, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the aforesaid appeal also came to be rejected vide order dated 5.5.2018 passed by the Chief Secretary, Panchayat Rural Housing and Rural Development Department. Hence, by way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged both the orders.

5. Mr.R.K.Mishra, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that considering the fact that serious char