Termination of honorary services by the State, especially when stigmatic, requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and a fair hearing, regardless of the 'honorary' nature of the appointment.

JUDGMENT

1. Rule returnable forthwith. Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP, waives service of Rule for respondent No.1-State and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate, waives service of Rule for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

1.1 With the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing today.

2. Heard Mr. Krishnan Ghavariya, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Munshaw, learned advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. Siddharth Rami, learned AGP for the respondent - State.

3. The present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to Admit this Special Civil Application;

(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to allow this Special Civil Application by issuing a writ of Mandamus quashing and setting aside the impugned termination order dated 10-03-2022 and thereby directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, full back wages and all consequential benefits with 12% interest in the interest of justice.

(C) Pending admission and final hearing of the present petition, Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 10-03-2022 in the interest of justice.

(D) Award any such other and further relief deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

(E) Award the cost of this Special Civil Application.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER :

4. Mr.Ghavariya, learned advocate for the petitioner, would submit that the services of the petitioner as an Anganwadi Worker were terminated by respondent No.3 vide its impugned order dated 10.03.2022 without observing the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an Anganwadi Worker by due process of law in the year 2010 and had an unblemished career until an FIR came to be registered against her on 04.02.2022 at Mithapur Police Station, District Devbhumi Dwarka. It is further submitted that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby the same may be quashed and set aside and the petitioner may be reinstated in service.

4.1 Mr. Ghavariya, learned advocate, would further submit that respondent No.3 has erroneously observed that since there is an FIR registered against the petitioner and she was behind bars for more than 48 hours, her service is deemed to have been terminated. It is submitted that as per the rules of procedure and as per Rule 5(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, even if any Government servant is arrested and remains in jail for more than 48 hours, in such circumstances also, at best, such an employee can be suspended and cannot be straightaway dismissed from service.

4.2 It is submitted that respondent No.3 was informed about the registration of the FIR by the petitioner herself while reporting for duty and as such, nothing has been suppressed from the respondent authority by the petitioner and in that view of the matter also, the services of the petitioner could not have been terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing and the departmental inquiry.

4.3 To buttress his argument, Mr. Ghavariya, learned advocate has placed reliance upon the following judgment:

(i) Judgment of this Court dated 10.03.2026 rendered in the case of Raj Hiteshkumar Patel