ANIL KUMAR PRATAPSINH GOHIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 30/11/2017, whereby the respondent no.1 has confirmed the order passed by the respondent no.2 dtd. 30/5/2015, terminating the service of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed as Panchayat-Sahayak on the sanctioned vacant post after due process of recruitment dtd. 1/10/2017.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on the Fixed Salary of Rs.2,500.00 per month for initial five years and thereafter, he was issued a show-cause notice dtd. 19/1/2015, calling upon his explanation for various irregularities committed by him. Accordingly, the petitioner filed a detailed reply dtd. 27/9/2013 to the show-cause notice. It appears that, after considering the reply, the petitioner was terminated from the service by an order dtd. 30/5/2015 by holding that he was committed various irregularities as mentioned therein. The petitioner filed an appeal, which was rejected by the order dtd. 30/11/2017.

(3.) Learned advocate Mr.Parekh appearing for the petitioner has submitted that before terminating the petitioner, the respondents were required to hold regular departmental inquiry under the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964, since the order is stigmatic. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court dtd. 8/5/2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.9142 of 2011, which is confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1457 of 2019 vide order dtd. 8/8/2019. He has further submitted that there are catena of decisions on the same lines and hence, the impugned order of termination may be set aside and the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service.