ORDER

1. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

i. That the order dated 3.10.2024 Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed and further reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

ii. Any other suitable order or direction deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioner."

2. Short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Manager by the Society vide resolution dated 11.10.2006 which was confirmed by respondent No.3 vide order dated 29.11.2006. In the month of January, 2024, the respondent No.4 had appointed respondent No.7/Dilip Meravi on the post of Manager in the respondent/Society. Immediately, after his appointment, the respondent No.6 had issued six articles of charges to the petitioner as evident from Annexure P/4, dated 22.4.2024. After issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner duly submitted his reply to the aforesaid charges and denied the charges levelled against him therein. Thereafter, vide letter dated 3.8.2024 the Inquiry Officer/respondent No.8 had informed the petitioner to appear in the departmental proceedings on 13.8.2024 at 12.00 PM.

3. On 13.8.2024, the petitioner appeared and sought time to adduce further evidence by way of filing an application. Thereupon, time was granted to him and the date for his appearance was fixed on 30.8.2024. In the meantime, a letter dated 14.8.2024 vide Annexure P/7 has been received by the petitioner from the respondent/department of preponing of the date for further appearance on 17.8.2024 at about 11.00 AM. But due to the petitioner being ill and was not in a position to appear on 17.8.2024, had sent an application seeking further time for his appearance in the departmental proceedings through e-mail and Whatsapp alongwith his medical certificate. Thereafter, without giving any intimation to the petitioner for his further appearance, only on the basis of report of the Enquiry Officer/respondent No.8, the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 has been passed by the respondent No.7 whereby the petitioner was terminated from service. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the present petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the impugned order dated 3.10.2024 has been passed by respondent No.7 is arbitrary, illegal and in utter violation of the principals of natural justice, as the same has been passed without providing the inquiry report as well as without affording opportunity to respond to it and the departmental proceedings were concluded behind his back and though a detailed reply to the allegations levelled against him was submitted by the petitioner but the contents therein were not adhered to.

5. It was further argued that the petitioner was terminated from service without affording any opportunity of hearing and also the inquiry report on the basis of which the petitioner has been removed, was carried out behind his back, therefore, the impugned order was bad in law.

6. It was further argued that the appointment of the petitioner was made 20 years ago which was duly confirmed by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 29.11.2006 but in the enquiry report, it was recoded that the appointment of the petitioner was never confirmed which is incorrect on the face of the record and the entire exercise of departmental enquiry and passing of the impugned order was nothing but a formality with a predetermined mind to terminate the petitioner on flimsy grounds.

7. It was further submitted that though a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner but the contents therein were not adhered to and though the allegations were refuted by the petitioner, only on the basis of report of Inquiry Officer straightaway the order of termination was passed which makes the order vulnerable.

8. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, it was prayed that the present petition deserves to be allowed and