SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Guj) 708

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.
Vishal Bakulchandra Pandya – Petitioner
Versus
State of Gujarat and Another – Respondents
Special Civil Application No. 4328 of 2014
Decided On : 01-05-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shalin Mehta, Aditi S. Raol.
For the Respondents: Dharitri Pancholi, A.R. Thacker.

IMPORTANT POINT
The regularization of service after the probation period and the inconsistency of the termination with the applicable rules led to the quashing of the termination order.

Headnote:

Suppression of Material Facts - Service Termination - Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 - Article 226

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner's service was terminated by the respondent No. 2, citing the appointment as purely temporary and terminable at any time by giving 24 hours notice. The petitioner challenged the termination, alleging it to be arbitrary and violative of constitutional provisions.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the petitioner's service had been regularized after the completion of the probation period, as evidenced by the order confirming his service and the entry in the service book. The Court held the termination to be inconsistent with the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 and quashed the impugned order, directing the reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits.

Issues: Suppression of material facts by the petitioner, regularity of the petitioner's service, and the validity of the termination under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the petitioner's service had been regularized after the probation period, and the termination was not in line with the applicable rules. The Court also imposed a cost on the petitioner for not stating true and correct facts before the Court.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the termination order was quashed, and the respondent No. 2 was directed to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and continuity of service. The petitioner was also directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000 before the Gujarat High Court Legal Aid Committee for stating incorrect facts.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

    “(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring the impugned Notice and Office Order dated 25.2.2014 terminating the service of the petitioner as arbitrary, unreasonable, irrational violating the principles of natural justice as well as Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and also as inconsistent with, and contrary to, Article 311(2) of the Constitution and quashing and setting aside the same.

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the condition no. 2 “the appointment is purely temporary and is terminable at any time by giving 24 hours notice on wither side” as is invoked to terminate the service of the confirmed employee, as illegal and void, as it is in violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

(C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date his service was terminated with all the consequential benefits, including back wages and continuity of service and other benefits that flow from such continuity of service.

(D) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to suspend the operation of the impugned notice and Office Order dated 25.2.2014.

(E) Your Lordships may be pleased to pass any other and/or further order, as deemed fit, in the interest of justice.”

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:

    2.1 The petitioner rendered service with the respondent No. 2 Jamnagar Area Development Authority, as Accountant Clerk-cum-Computer Operator from 01.10.1997 to 28.10.2005 and again as Assistant Accountant from 01.11.2005 to 29.01.2007 on contract basis. It is the case of the petitioner that, by way of regular recruitment calling names from the Employment Exchange, the respondent no. 2, by Office Order dated 08.01.2008 appointed the petitioner on purely temporary basis to the post of Clerk-cum-Typist on the terms and conditions specified therein on basic salary of Rs. 3,050/- per month in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75-3950-80-4590 plus usual allowances as admissible as per rules of Government of Gujarat. The appointment was on probation for a period of two years and condition no. 2 stipulated that “The appointment is purely temporary and is terminable at any time by giving 24 hours notice on either side.”

2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that on completion of his two years of probation on 08.01.2010, by order dated 03.02.2010, the respondent no. 2, by treating the probation period as continuous service confirmed the petitioner in terms of the terms and conditions of service stipulated in Government Resolution dated 30.09.1988, as amended from time to time. Accordingly, the petitioner was also given the benefit of pay revision under 6th Pay Commission and, thus, his pay was fixed in the Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 1,900 with date of his first increment being 01.07.2008. That, to the utter shock and dismay of the petitioner, came, without forewarning or notice, like a bolt from the blue, “Notice and Office Order” dated 25.02.2014 from the respondent no. 2 terminating the service of the petitioner at 2 P.M. on 26.02.2014 by invoking the condition no. 2 of his initial appointment on probation, namely “the appointment is purely temporary and is terminable at any time by giving 24 hours notice on either side.”

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid Notice and Office Order dated 25.02.2014 terminating the service of the petitioner without any notice or reason and without following the procedure prescribed in the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

        Please visit our Training & Support
        Center or Contact Us for assistance

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top