ORAL JUDGMENT

1. RULE returnable forthwith. Mr.Kurven Desai learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent State and Mr.Hem Dave learned advocate for Mr.Dipak Dave learned advocate waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent no.2.

2. With the consent of learned advocates for the respective parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has made twofold prayers, whereby, he has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 11.02.2021 passed by the respondent no.2 as well as the impugned order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the same respondent.

4. Facts in brief would indicate that by an order dated

27.02.2008, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Engineer purely for a fixed period of three years and posted under (O & M) Circle, Amreli. On an FIR being lodged with the Police Inspector of ACB, Amreli vide C.R. No.1/2010/VardhiReport/8/2010 dated 22.01.2010, regarding the bribe accepted from one consumer, the petitioner faced discontinuation of his services in terms of Clause-10 of the appointment letter. By a judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Rajula dated 13.02.2020, the petitioner was acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the criminal proceedings. He therefore made a representation on 01.10.2020 to the respondents to reinstate him in service as he was acquitted. He again, made a representation on 01.02.2021 and by the impugned order dated 11.02.2021, the respondent-Electricity Company rejected his representation on the ground that against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court, an acquittal appeal has been filed in the Gujarat High Court and the same is pending.

5. Mr.P.P.Majmudar learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the very basis of the order of termination dated 03.02.2010 would not survive inasmuch as the petitioner has now earned a clean acquittal by the order of the Trial Court dated 13.02.2020. Reliance was placed on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 24.07.2020 rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No.1596 of 2019 in case of State of Gujarat v. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor to submit that the order was stigmatic inasmuch as it was without notice based on a criminal complaint filed against him. Even otherwise, once the very basis of the order of termination had gone, he deserves to be reinstated. Reliance was placed on a decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in case of Govind Bherabhai Patel rendered in Special Civil Application No.17083 of 2019 in context of the facts of the present case.

6. Mr.Hem Dave learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the order of 03.02.2010 is challenged by way of a petition in the year 2021. The petition is grossly belated and no relief should be granted to the petitioner who slept over his rights and did not challenge his termination for a period of over 11 years. He would also submit that even otherwise, it was a contractual appointment, his termination was in accordance with Clause 10 of the appointment letter and an appeal was pending against the acquittal by the Trial Court.

7. In support of his submission, Mr.Dave would rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of C. Jecob v. Director of Geology and Mining Indus Est reported in 2008 (10) SCC 115. Mr.Dave would press into service paragraph nos.6 to 11. Reading of the same, he would submit that here was a case where the challenge to the termination was made by the employee after 18 years and the Supreme Court clearly opined that merely because a representation was made and the direction was given to dispose of the same, that would not cure the long delay and the High Court should not routinely entertain such applications ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation.

8. Reliance was also placed on the decision in case of State of Jammu & Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and others reported in 2015 (15) SCC 602. Mr.Dave w