Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Yogeshbhai Rupabhai Vatukiya Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)
Appeal Number : R/Special Civil Application No. 13245 of 2020
Date of Judgement/Order : 26/11/2020
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Yogeshbhai Rupabhai Vatukiya Vs State of Gujarat (Gujarat High Court)

The grievance ventilated in the present petition is such that the impugned orders annexed at Annexure A to the petition came to be passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and without holding any departmental inquiry even though, termination was sought to be based on allegation of misconduct of demanding bribe.

It appears that the petitioner was appointed on 14.6.2017  pursuant to his selection in the process undertaken by the Gujarat Subordinate Service Selection Board. The appointment of the petitioner was on the basis of fixed pay for a period of five years on ad-hoc basis with fixed pay as Revenue Talati (Class III). On account of registration of FIR No.02 of 2020 dated 29.1.2020, which came to be registered against the petitioner with ACB Police Station, Surat City for the offences punishable u/s 7(A) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the impugned orders dated 20.2.2020 came to be passed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 stating that the petitioner had committed the offence and resulting serious misconduct by demanding bribe. According to the respondent No.2, the petitioner was appointed for fixed period and on fixed pay and that since he had shown serious dereliction of duties of dishonesty in discharge of his duties, it amounted to serious misconduct and therefore, as per condition No.14(A) of the letter of appointment, services of the petitioner cam

It is a matter of fact that the termination order was passed without compliance of principles of natural justice and without holding any departmental enquiry and therefore, the position of law as reproduced herein above would operate to grant relief to the petitioner.

Since the impugned order will be liable to be quashed and petitioner will be liable to be reinstated, it is clarified that the petitioner’s reinstatement would be for the remainder period which would make up the total fixed period of five years, for which he was appointed.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031