A government servant cannot be dismissed without being informed of charges and given a reasonable opportunity to defend, as mandated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

M. K. Thakker, J.

1.Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Mishra waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent-workman.

2.With the consent of the parties, this matter is taken up for final disposal considering the controversy, which is in narrow compass.

(1) The question for consideration before this Court is that whether an opportunity to deny the guilt and establish his innocence had been given by framing the definite charges and by disclosing the allegations on which, the charges were based?

(2) Whether opportunity to defend himself by cross examining the witnesses produced against him and examined in his presence and to examine himself or any other witnesses in support of his defence was given?

(3) Whether any material had been relied on against the delinquent in the inquiry without being given an opportunity to explain the same?

(4) Whether opportunity to make his representation as to why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted upon him, had been given?

3.Considering the above issues, the fact of the petition is referred as under:

3.1. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India through the Municipal Commissioner by the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation against the award dated 02.08.2022 passed by the learned labour Court at Ahmedabad in Reference (T) No.234 of 2016 preferred by the respondent-workman directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent-workman in service on his original post with 25% back wages and cost of Rs.1000/-.

3.2. The respondent-workman was born on 25.08.1989 holding the education qualification of B.A. as well as Diploma in Health Sanitary Inspector completed from Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.). The advertisement was published for recruitment in the cadre and the applications were invited from the eligible candidates and in response to that, respondent-workman submitted his application form along with the documents including the mark-sheet issued by the Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) indicating that he had declared the course of diploma in Sanitary Inspector in the year of 2011. The call letter was issued on 01.05.2012 for verification of the certificate, mark-sheet and other credential and thereafter, the respondent was appointed as a Multipurpose Health Purpose (male) on 11.07.2012 the appointment letter reveals the condition regarding the appointment as a contractual appointment and on the fixed salary of Rs.5,200/- per month and he is liable to be terminated in case of indiscipline or unsatisfactory service.

3.3. The appointees were eligible for regular pay scale after satisfactory service of three years and the undertaking was submitted accepting the above terms and conditions of the appointment by the respondent-workman. Thereafter, it came into the knowledge of the petitioner that the respondent-workman as well as other contractual appointees holding the certificate of Manav Bharti University, Solan (H.P.) is not genuine certificate and therefore, for verification of the genuineness of the certificate, it was referred to the Vigilance Department of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation. On receiving the report, the present respondent-workman along with other two co-employees, namely, Himanshubhai Chaudhary and Amiben Patel were relieved by way of termination of their contractual appointment after payment of notice pay on 30.08.2015. That apprehending such action, the respondent-workman and other employees have preferred the petition before this Court being Special Civil Application Nos.231/2013, 16040/2016 and 16041/2013 however, the same were dismissed vide order dated 22.12.2014 after assigning the detailed reasons by this Court. The aforesaid judgment was carried before the Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench of this Court had rejected the Letters Patent Appeal being No.1002 of 2015 on 29.06.2015. Despite the order passed by this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal, the Reference was preferred by t