MINAKSHIBEN LAXMANBHAI PARALIYA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocates for the respective respondents, waives service of rule on behalf of respondents.

(2.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the communication dtd. 17/7/2018 by which the services of the petitioner were terminated. Reading the communication, it would indicate that the services of the petitioner have been terminated in accordance with Condition No.12 of the Contract of Appointment that was entered into. While appointing the petitioner, Condition No.12 G provided that, in case the petitioner is found to have committed any misconduct, cheating or moral terpitude, the petitioner's services shall be put to an end. This decision is challenged by the petitioner. The facts in brief are as under:

(3.) Mr.Asthavadi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, though, the employment was contractual, the communication of termination dtd. 17/7/2018 was a stigmatic one and could not have been passed without an appropriate inquiry. He would draw the attentin of the Court to the communicatin referred to in communication dtd. 17/7/2018 (communication of even date), which was referred to in the order putting the services of the petitioner to an end. That communication would indicate that in view of an FIR being filed against the petitioner on 17/7/2018, the services of the petitioner were put to an end in accordance with terms of the contract. This according to Mr.Asthavadi, learned counsel, was a stigmatic termination, and therefore, ought to be set aside.