GHANSHYAMSINH DEVAJI CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the oral order dtd. 23/2/2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2898 of 2016. The petitioner/appellant herein who was initially appointed on 1/5/2001 on the post of Police Sub-Inspector on probation, was terminated from service by an order dtd. 28/4/2006. On a representation being made, by an order dtd. 29/9/2008, his representation was rejected. Perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge would indicate that petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing Special Civil Application No. 14259 of 2011, which came to be disposed of on 30/1/2012, in light of the fact that the petitioner/appellant had filed a revision application before the State Government, challenging the orders of discharge.

(2.) We note that the Civil Application has been moved for amendment of the appeal bringing the order of rejection of revision on 19/4/2012 on record and even making that a ground for assailing the orders of discharge before us.

(3.) Ms. Vidhi Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the appellant would assail the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground that though, admittedly the appellant was working on probation, having been appointed on 1/5/2001, two charge sheets were issued, one on 10/9/2004 for absence and the other charge sheet dtd. 3/2/2005 for an absence for a period from 3/10/2004 to 19/11/2004. She would submit that though the charge sheets were dropped by orders of 27/4/2006, the fact that the employer had decided to hold departmental proceedings for the charge of absence, on two occasions discharge, post dropping of these charge sheets was punitive, stigmatic, and therefore, it couldn't be said to be discharge simplicitor, but a order which was stigmatic which should have been preceded with a regular departmental proceedings. 3.1. She would also invite the Court's attention to the memo of the petition to indicate that the subsequent amendment in the appeal to challenge the order of rejecting the revision, as being an order without reasons, is available to the appellant in light of the averments made in the petition, namely in paragraph 3.13 which mentioned the order of revision, but through oversight the prayer for quashing the order was not made. Taking us to the order dtd. 19/4/2012,which was annexed to the petition, but was not a subject matter of challenge, she would submit that the order was without reasons and therefore, even otherwise, the petition ought to have been allowed. Learned advocate Ms. Vidhi Bhatt would also rely on a decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 dtd. 24/7/2020 in the case of State of Gujarat v. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor.