SHANTILAL JOITARAM PATEL Vs. SECRETARY CO OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. The petitioner was appointed as Secretary, after selection, on probation. This appointment of the petitioner was subject to the approval of the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural FInance, Gandhinagar. The Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, vide his office order dated 21-5-1986 approved the appointment of the petitioner. These facts are not in dispute. The services of the petitioner were terminated vide resolution No. 7 dated 8th December, 1988. From the reading of the resolution aforesaid it comes out that his services were terminated taking into consideration the misconduct of the petitioner and treating him to be on temporary service.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was confirmed Secretary and not temporary, and as such his services could not have been terminated in the manner and the fashion in which it has been done in the present case. It has next been contended that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the misconduct alleged and as such, being a permanent Secretary, it could have been done only after giving him charge-sheet and holding full-fledged inquiry. It has next been contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that his services were terminated for misconduct and as such it could have been done only with the previous approval of the Director, as per sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965, which is not taken in the present case. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that it is a case of termination simpliciter of the probationer and as such no notice was required to be given, nor any inquiry was to be conducted. As it was a case of termination simpliciter of the services of a probationer provisions of sub-rule (3) of Rule 41 of the aforesaid rules did not apply. It has further been contended that confirmation of the petitioner was not approved by the Director and, though the Market Committee had confirmed the petitioner in service, the petitioner continued to hold the post on probation.

(3.) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties. Section 22 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 provides for appointment of servants of a Market Committee and the conditions of their services. A Secretary is to be appointed for every Market Committee. Appointment of Secretary shall be made by the Market Committee with the approval of the Director, and subject to the terms and conditions prescribed. Section 21 only contemplates for approval of appointment of Secretary, which has been admittedly given in the present case. Section 21 of the Act nowhere contemplates for approval of the Director for confirmation of a probationer on completion of the period of probation. Learned Counsel for the respondents has not been able to point out any provision either from the Act or the Rules or from the Service Rules of the employees of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Visnagar, providing that the approval of the Director is required to be taken for confirmation of an employee.