Termination based on stigmatic grounds requires a full-fledged departmental inquiry, as established by previous orders and judgments.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 19.04.2022, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent - original petitioner and directed the present appellants - original resopndents to reinstate the petitioner.

2. Heard learned AGP Mr. Kurven Desai for the appellants, learned advocate, Mr. Jit P. Patel for the respondent.

3. Learned AGP Mr. Desai submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Deputy Mamlatdar (Class-III) vide order dated 25.05.2015 on certain terms and conditions, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.24 of the compilation. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on 15.06.2020 on the ground that FIR came to be registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.20 of the compilation. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated relying upon Condition No.14(A) of the appointment order and, therefore, the original respondents have not committed any illegality while passing an order of termination, inspite of that, learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order and thereby allowed the petition filed by the original petitioner.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate, Mr. Patel appearing for the original petitioner submitted that learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the petitioner relying upon the order dated 22.07.2022 passed in Special Civil Application No.15083/2021. It is submitted that while allowing the said petition, learned Single Judge has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by the Division Bench dated 24.07.2020 in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596/2019. It is further submitted that recently, this Court has passed an order on 17.03.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.300/2023 as well as order on 18.04.2024 in Letters Patent Appeal No.525/2023. It is submitted that the issue involved in the present matter is covered by the aforesaid orders passed by this Court. Learned advocate, therefore, urged that this appeal be dismissed.

5. We have considered the submissions canvassed by learned advocates for the parties. We have also perused the material placed on record. It would emerge from the record that the petitioner came to be appointed on 25.05.2015 on contractual basis for a period of five years and in the year 2020, FIR under the Prevention of Corruption Act came to be lodged against the petitioner and, therefore, the original respondents passed an order of termination on 15.06.2020, whereby the services of the petitioner came to be terminated, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.20 of the compilation. It is revealed from the said order that the services of the petitioner is terminated because of registration of the FIR against him. It is not in dispute that before terminating the services of the petitioner, full-fledge departmental inquiry was not conducted. We have gone through the order of termination, from which, it is revealed that the said order is stigmatic order and, therefore, the original respondents were required to conduct full-fledge departmental inquiry.

6. In similar type of matters, the Division Bench of this Court has passed an order on 17.03.2023 in Letters Patent Appeal No.300/2023, wherein this Court has observed in Paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11 as under,

9. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material placed on record, it would emerge that the original petitioner was appointed in the year 2012. Order of appointment is placed on record. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner was appointed on contract basis on certain terms and conditions and as per Clause 14(A) of the order of appointment, service of the petitioner can be terminated after giving one month’s notice. It is true that the respondents issued show-cause notice to the petitioner, however, w