The main legal point established is the requirement of a full-fledged departmental inquiry before terminating an employee, particularly in cases where the termination order casts stigma.

ORDER :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 28.09.2022, whereby learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent - original petitioner and directed the present appellants - original respondents to reinstate the petitioner on same terms and conditions on which he was initially appointed.

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 23.02.2018 on contractual basis. It is further submitted that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated vide order dated 23.06.2021 on the ground that FIR came to be registered against the petitioner under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned AGP has referred to the order of termination dated 23.06.2021, copy of which is placed on record at Page No.17 of the compilation. It is further submitted that the petitioner challenged the said order by filing captioned petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 28.09.2022, allowed the petition and thereby issued aforesaid directions and, hence, the appellants have filed present appeal.

4. Learned AGP would mainly submit that the petitioner was appointed on 23.02.2018 on certain terms and conditions, copy of appointment order is placed on record at Page No.20 of the compilation. Learned AGP has referred to Condition No.14(A) of the appointment order, wherein it is provided that in case of misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the services will be terminated without issuance of notice and after payment of one month salary. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated as per the aforesaid condition and, therefore, the appellants have not committed any illegality, inspite of that, learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order of termination on the ground that the original respondents had not conducted full-fledge departmental inquiry. Learned AGP, therefore, urged that the impugned order be set aside.

5. 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.

6. 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 23.02.2018 on contractual basis for a period of five years and in the year 2021, 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 23.06.2021, whereby the services of the petitioner came to be terminated, copy of said order is placed on record at Page No.17 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-f