SUNITABEN MAFATLAL VAGHELA Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 02.11.2010 and also seeking a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner at his original post as Chief Assistant.

(2.) The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under:

(3.) Learned advocate Ms.Vidhi Bhatt appearing for the petitioner submitted that while passing the termination order, no departmental inquiry has been held by the respondent no.3. She has submitted that the termination of the petitioner was based on the misconducts, hence a regular departmental inquiry was necessitated. She submitted that the petitioner is an employee of the respondent No.1 and her service is squarely covered under the rules of the Gujarat Panchayat (Discipline & Conduct) Rules, 1997 and, therefore, conditions mentioned in the appointment order are similar with those employees appointed regularly under the respondent No.1, except salary and hence, for such termination, it is necessary to hold a departmental inquiry against the petitioner, which is admittedly not initiated by the respondents and only on this ground the order passed below is required to be quashed. She further submitted that as per the judgments of the Division Bench dated 20.02.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal no.189 of 2018, and in the judgment dated 15.04.2019, passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.841 of 2019, on an similar issue, wherein the Division Bench, while examining the cases of the termination of contractual and temporary employees has set aside the termination which was passed without holding a full-fledged departmental inquiry as per the discipline and appeal rules. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order of termination is required to be quashed and set aside with all consequential benefits. She submitted that the respondents have also placed reliance on the preliminary report which is also not supplied to the petitioner; hence the impugned order is required to be set aside. Reliance is also placed on the judgments of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Champaklal Chimanlal Shah V/s. Union of India, 1964 AIR(SC) 1854 and Moti Ram Deka V/s. General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, 1964 AIR(SC) 600..