IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9380 of 2021 FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT =======================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No ✓

=======================================

RAJ HITESHKUMAR PATEL, TOWN PLANNER MEHSANA MUNICIPALITY Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

=======================================

Appearance:

MR. DIPAK PATEL, Advocate with MR CHINTAN V ACHARYA(10558) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR KAMLESH S KOTAI(6150) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3 MS. FORUM SUKHADWALA, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1 =======================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MAULIK J.SHELAT Date : 10/03/2026 ORAL JUDGMENT [1] Heard Mr. Dipak Patel, learned advocate with Mr. Chintan V. Acharya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP for the respondent No.1 – State as also Mr. Kamlesh Kotai, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 & 3, at length.

[2] Rule returnable forthwith. Ms. Forum Sukhadwala, learned AGP as also Mr. Kamlesh Kotai, learned advocate, waive service of notice of Rule for and on behalf of the respective respondents.

[3] The present writ petition is filed under Articles 14, 16 and

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:-

“(A) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

(B) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside order of termination dated 10-10-2019 passed by the Respondent No. 3 as well as the resolution dated 31.01.2020 which are at Annexure - “A” as also order passed by the Respondent No. 1, appellate authority on 27.01.2021 which is at Annexure – “B” to this petition, by holding that the order of termination is illegal, bad and contrary to the law.

(C) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent Mehsana Municipality to reinstate the petitioner in service, on his original post, with all consequential benefits and fullback wages with continuity of service, as if, the impugned order of termination as never passed.

(D) During the pendency of admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on his original post with all the consequential benefits without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both sides.

(F) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further relief to the petitioner as me deem just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.”

SHORT FACTS:

[4] The petitioner was appointed as a Town Planner on 02.12.2015 by respondent No.2 – Mahesana Municipality (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Municipality’). The appointment of the petitioner was for a period of 5 years on a fixed pay but after undergoing regular selection process as per the norms of the State.

[4.1] It is not in dispute between the parties that only on the basis of show cause notice dated 09.09.2019 served upon the petitioner and without holding any departmental inquiry, the impugned order dated 10.10.2019 came to be passed by the Municipality whereby services of the petitioner came to be terminated.

[4.2] The impugned order of termination passed on the basis of serious misconduct, which alleged to have been committed by the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.

SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONER:

[5] Mr. Patel, learned advocate for the petitioner would submit that as per the settled legal position of law, without holding a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, his service could not have been terminated by the Municipality. It is submitted that the impugned order is ex-facie, stigmatic in nature and even though the petitioner was contractually appointed for 5 years on a fixed pay but through regular selection, as per the Government Resolution dated 28.3.2016, the Municipality was required to hold regular inquiry before terminating