IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established is the distinction between discharge simplicitor and stigmatic orders, and the relevance of revisional authority's decision in such cases.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the oral order dated 23.02.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2898 of 2016. The petitioner/appellant herein who was initially appointed on 01.05.2001 on the post of Police Sub-Inspector on probation, was terminated from service by an order dated 28.04.2006. On a representation being made, by an order dated 29.09.2008, his representation was rejected. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 14259 of 2011, which came to be disposed of on 30.01.2012, in light of the fact that the petitioner/appellant had filed a revision application before the State Government, challenging the orders of discharge.

2. We note that the Civil Application has been moved for amendment of the appeal bringing the order of rejection of revision on 19.04.2012 on record and even making that a ground for assailing the orders of discharge before us.

3. Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would assail the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that though, admittedly the appellant was working on probation, having been appointed on 01.05.2001, two charge sheets were issued, one on 10.09.2004 for absence and the other charge sheet dated 03.02.2005 for an absence for a period from 03.10.2004 to 19.11.2004. She would submit that though the charge sheets were dropped by orders of 27.04.2006, the fact that the employer had decided to hold departmental proceedings for the charge of absence, on two occasions discharge, post dropping of these charge sheets was punitive, stigmatic, and therefore, it couldn’t be said to be discharge simplicitor, but a order which was stigmatic which should have been preceded with a regular departmental proceedings.

3.1. She would also invite the Court’s attention to the memo of the petition to indicate that the subsequent amendment in the appeal to challenge the order of rejecting the revision, as being an order without reasons, is available to the appellant in light of the averments made in the petition, namely in paragraph 3.13 which mentioned the order of revision, but through oversight the prayer for quashing the order was not made. Taking us to the order dated 19.04.2012, which was annexed to the petition, but was not a subject matter of challenge, she would submit that the order was without reasons and therefore, even otherwise, the petition ought to have been allowed. Learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt would also rely on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 dated 24.07.2020 in the case of State of Gujarat v. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor.

4. Mr. Rohan Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader in addition to supporting the order of the learned Single Judge would submit that the order of termination was an order of discharge simplicitor and therefore, no departmental proceedings need be conducted. To the application seeking amendment in the appeal, he would draw the Court’s attention to the affidavit-in-reply filed opposing the amendment application suggesting that once a full- fledged adjudication was made by the learned Single Judge, the application for amendment to challenge the order of 19.04.2012, which was consciously a part of the petition, could not now be made a subject matter of challenge.

5. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the respective parties, it is not in dispute and not even argued that post the appointment of the appellant on 01.05.2001, the appellant continued on probation till the order of discharge dated 28.04.2006. It is not even argued that the appellant’s services had the colour of deemed confirmation. Admittedly, therefore, the petitioner/appellant continued to be on probation.

6. As far as the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellant that once the charge sheets were issu