Gujarat High Court
Urvashiben Hardikbhai Bhatt vs State Of Gujarat on 5 February, 2025
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 22740 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI Sd./-
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
✔
==========================================================
URVASHIBEN HARDIKBHAI BHATT
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DARSHAN DAVE, UMANG P RAVAL(9074) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS TANUSHREE SHRIMAL, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
KAASH K THAKKAR(7332) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
REFUSED SERVED (N)(10) for the Respondent(s) No. 4
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 05/02/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing with learned Advocate, Mr. Raval, for the petitioner, learned AGP, Ms. Shrimal, for the Respondent-State and learned Advocate, Mr. Thakkar, for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
2. Today, with the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, this matter is taken-up for hearing and final disposal. Hence, RULE. Learned AGP, Ms. Shrimal, and learned Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined Advocate, Mr. Thakkar, waives service of rule for the respective respondents.
3. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.09.2022, passed by Respondent No.2 with a further prayer to direct the Respondent-authorities to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits.
4. According to learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 is a stigmatic order and therefore, in view of the catena of decisions of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, whereby, it is held that the stigmatic termination of services of a person is bad in law, the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
5. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner came to be appointed by Respondent No.2, on the post of Programme Assistant - Asha Resource Centre, vide order dated 01.03.2017. As per the order dated 01.03.2017, the appointment of the petitioner was purely on contractual basis and for a specific period, i.e. from 04.03.2017 to 01.02.2018, and she was to be paid consolidated, honorarium of Rs.9000/- per month. However, the contract of the petitioner came to be renewed from time-to-time, subsequently.
5.1 It is, further, the case of the petitioner that, though, her contract came to an end on 08.08.2022, she was continued in service till 27.09.2022 and thereafter, while referring to Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined Condition No. 7 of the appointment order dated 01.03.2017, she was intimated that her contract is not renewed and thereby, her services were put an end to.
5.2 According to the petitioner, the mention of Condition No.7 in the impugned order would amount to stigmatic termination of the services of the petitioner. Hence, the present petition.
6. Learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 mentions that the petitioner is relieved as her contract is not renewed with effect from 08.08.2022 and there is also mention of Condition No.7 of the appointment order, therein, which according to learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, shall amount to stigmatic termination. He, then, invited the attention of this Court to Condition No. 7 of the appointment order of the petitioner, which reads thus;
"7. In case of any complaint related to irresponsible behaviour of the employee, misappropriation of fund or fraud the contract will be terminated with immediate effect."
6.1 By referring to Condition No.7, it was submitted that as the same refers to termination of service with immediate effect on account of any irresponsible behaviour, misappropriation of funds or fraud, the same can be said to be a stigmatic termination, since, whosoever may read the impugned order Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined shall get an impression that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated on account of some irresponsible behaviour, misappropriation of funds or fraud. It was, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be quashed and set aside.
6.2 In support of his submission, learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court dated 22.08.2024, rendered in the case of 'Swati Priyadarshini Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh' in Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024, wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court quashed and set aside the order of termination of the appellant therein, though, the same was plain and simple, only on the ground that the same was based on the background, whereby, the show-cause notices were issued to the appellant therein, and therefore it was held that, since, the aforesaid background led to the termination of the services of the petitioner, the order of termination was held to be stigmatic in nature.
7. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Thakkar, appearing for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submitted that there is a case of unauthorized absenteeism against the present petitioner, but, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Tapas Roy', reported in (2006) 6 SCC 453, wherein, it is held that even in the case of a probationer, if, the termination order is based on absenteeism, then, the same cannot be said to be 'Stigmatic' in nature and therefore, under such circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held the termination order based on absenteeism as valid and affirmed the termination by allowing Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined the appeal filed by the State of West Bengal.
7.1 Insofar as, mentioning of Condition No.7 of the appointment order in the impugned order dated 27.09.2022 is concerned, it was submitted that merely because Condition No.7 is mentioned in the impugned order, it shall not make the order of termination, a stigmatic order by itself and even if, a few show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner in the past, the same were in respect of her unauthorized absenteeism and her improper behaviour and thereafter, when the contract of the petitioner came to an end on 08.08.2022, the same was not renewed. It was, therefore, submitted that this is, in fact, a case of simply non-renewal of contract and there being no termination, there is no question of passing a stigmatic order of termination against the petitioner. It was, therefore, prayed that this petition be dismissed.
8. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and I have also perused the material on record and I find that the merely because the impugned order states that the petitioner's contract came to an end on 08.08.2022 and that the same is not being renewed, the same would not amount to stigmatic termination of services. It is true that the termination order refers to Condition No.7 of the appointment order, but, the same does not mention the provisions of Condition No.7.
8.1 Every order of termination would mention the source of powers and / or condition, which empowers the concerned authority to put an end to the services of an employee and Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined therefore, merely referring the concerned clause, i.e. Condition No.7, in the order of termination, would not make the order of termination a stigmatic termination order by itself and if, such a view is taken then in every single case, where there is mention of source of power in the order of termination, the same shall have to be termed as a stigmatic order. Therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, that as the impugned order refers to Condition No.7, it would become a stigmatic order, cannot be accepted.
8.2 So far as the reliance placed by the learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of 'Swati Priyadarshini' (Supra) is concerned, the facts of that case are totally different from the facts of the case on hand. In the case of 'Swati Priyadarshini' (Supra), the order of termination was based on certain past incidents for which two show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner, therein, as can be seen from the aforesaid decision, and therefore in the facts and circumstances of that particular case the Apex Court held the order of termination to be bad in law.
8.3 In the instant case, this Court finds that this is not even a case of termination, let apart stigmatic termination, for the reason that the contract of the petitioner came to an end on 08.08.2022 and the petitioner was informed vide impugned order dated 27.09.2022 that the same is not being renewed and therefore, the same would not make the impugned order a stigmatic order.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/22740/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 05/02/2025 undefined 8.4 This Court put a specific query to learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, that though the contract of the petitioner came to an end on 08.08.2022, since, the petitioner had worked up to 27.09.2022, as to whether, the petitioner is paid remuneration for the remaining period and the learned Advocate, Mr. Dave, fairly conceded that the petitioner is fully paid up to 27.09.2022. Thus, when the petitioner has worked up to 27.09.2022, i.e. even after the expiry of her contract on 08.08.2022, and when she is also paid the salary for the period up to 27.09.2022, the impugned order cannot be termed as an order of termination, much less stigmatic termination and in fact, it is a simple case of non-renewal of contract of the petitioner. Therefore, this petition does not deserve to be entertained.
9. Resultantly, this petition fails and the same is Dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Sd./-
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) UMESH/-
Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by UMESH H. CHAVDA(HC00203) on Thu Feb 06 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 07 00:57:22 IST 2025