The main legal point established in the judgment is the authority's power to terminate services under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988, based on the conduct of the petitioner and the loss of confidence by the respondent institution.

Headnote:
Termination - Services - Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988 - The court discussed the termination of the petitioner's services by the respondent society and the application of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988. The court highlighted the principles of natural justice, the conduct of the petitioner, and the authority's power to terminate the services under Rule 15(ii) of the said Rules.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as Principal of Anandalaya Education Society on probation basis. Allegations were made against the petitioner, leading to departmental proceedings and a charge-sheet. The petitioner's services were terminated by the respondent society, prompting the filing of the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's conduct was unbecoming of a Principal, leading to loss of confidence by the respondent institution. The court also noted the refusal of the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry due to the petitioner's behavior. It held that the termination was justified under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988.
Issues: The issues involved the termination of the petitioner's services, the conduct of the petitioner during the inquiry, and the application of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the petitioner's conduct, the refusal of the Inquiry Officer to proceed with the inquiry, and the authority's power to terminate the services under Rule 15(ii) of the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, finding that the termination of the petitioner's services was justified and that there was no justifiable reason to interfere with the respondent's decision.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present petition is filed by being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 10.10.2022 passed by the respondent – society, by which, the services of the petitioner is terminated, and therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Brief facts of the case are as such that the petitioner made an application on 26.08.2019 for appointment as a Principal of Anandalaya Education Society. It is the case of the petitioner that the necessary selection procedures were conducted on 30.11.2019 and 01.12.2019. Consequent to that, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Principal of the college, which is run by the respondent. He was appointed by appointment letter dated 03.12.2019. It is further the case of the petitioner that the letter of appointment states that the petitioner was appointed on probation basis for a period of one year and subsequently by office order dated 29.12.2020, the respondent has confirmed the services of the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that various allegations were made against the petitioner and consequently departmental proceedings were initiated, and thereafter, a charge-sheet against the petitioner dated 11.02.2022 has been served to the petitioner and thereafter, the respondent has passed order dated 11.02.2022 for suspension of the petitioner on temporary basis.

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has made a detailed reply by denying the charges made in the charge-sheet. It is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent by letter dated 29.04.2022 had intimated the petitioner about appointment of Shri V.C. Patel as Inquiry Officer for conducting the departmental proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner that additional charge-sheet is also served to the petitioner on 03.08.2022 and subsequently, the respondent - society has lodged an F.I.R. before Anand Town Police Station bearing No.11215002220695 of 2022 under Section 506(1) of IPC. It is further the case of the petitioner in the petition that the respondent – society has passed the order dated 10.08.2022 whereby the suspension of petitioner is extended till the completion of the inquiry proceedings. It is further the case of the petitioner in the petition that subsequently, the respondent has filed second additional charge-sheet dated 11.08.2022, to which, the petitioner by letter dated 23.08.2022 has filed their explanation to the charges framed in the additional charge-sheet. It is further the case of the petitioner in the petition that since he is visiting to Jaipur from 15.10.2022 till 30.10.2022, he has sent email to the respondent on 06.10.2022 for intimating about his unavailability. Thereafter, the respondent has passed the order on 10.10.2022, by which the services of the petitioner were terminated.

2.3 Thereafter, the present petition is filed.

3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Prithvirajsinh Jadeja assisted by learned advocate Mr. Jaimin A. Gandhi for the petitioner and learned Senior advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave assisted by learned advocate Mr. Udit N. Vyas for the respondent.

4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Prithvirajsinh Jadeja for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is in compete dis-regard to the principles of natural justices and various settled legal positions of law.

4.2 He has submitted that on successful completion of probation, the services of the petitioner were confirmed and accordingly, the petitioner became a regular employee of the respondent. He has further submitted that the respondent ought not to have terminated the services of the petitioner without following the requirements of departmental inquiry as per the Anandalaya Education Society (Service conditions, discipline, conduct and appeal) Rules, 1988.

4.3 He has further submitted that though the respondent initiated the departmental inquiry, the respondent did not conclude the departmental inquiry. The respondent has admitted