Gujarat High Court
Ashokkumar Atmaram Prajapati vs High Court Of Gujarat on 11 March, 2026
Author: Nirzar S. Desai
Bench: Nirzar S. Desai
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6687 of 2016
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
ASHOKKUMAR ATMARAM PRAJAPATI
Versus
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
=====================================================
Appearance:
MS HARSHAL N PANDYA(3141) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
IG JOSHI(8726) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
LAW OFFICER BRANCH(420) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI
Date : 11/03/2026
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Harshal N. Pandya appearing for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr. Ishan G. Joshi appearing for the respondent - High Court of Gujarat.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned Page 1 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined order of termination dated 28.03.2016 passed against the present petitioner and has further prayed for reinstating the petitioner in service to his original post with all consequential benefits and continuity of service.
3. The facts of the case, as stated by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, are as under:
3.1 The present petitioner was appointed as Deputy Section Officer on the establishment of the Gujarat High Court on probation for a period of two years vide appointment order dated 26.09.2014, and the petitioner resumed his duties on 13.10.2014.
3.2 On 20.07.2015, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice seeking his explanation for committing a breach of Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011.
As per the notice, the same was issued pursuant to a complaint filed by one Ms. Darshanaben S. Patel, who appeared at the exam held by the High Court for the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) on the establishment of subordinate Courts in the State of Gujarat. On Page 2 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined 27.07.2015, the petitioner submitted his reply to such notice, and on 11.09.2015, another notice was issued to the petitioner whereby the respondents took the stand that the services of the petitioner were not satisfactory during the probation period as described under Rule 12(2) of the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 2011, and hence the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated without prior notice. On 22.09.2015, upon receipt of the notice, the petitioner requested that time for a period of 10 to 15 days be granted so as to enable him to submit his detailed reply to the show-cause notice and also requested a copy of the complaint and the statement.
3.3 Vide communication dated 30.09.2015, the petitioner was granted time up to 07.10.2015, and it was communicated that after the petitioner files his reply, the decision with regard to the grant of personal hearing will be taken.
3.4 On 07.10.2015, the petitioner filed his Page 3 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined detailed explanation and submitted that he had not committed any breach of any of the Rules as alleged in the notice and that he had performed his duties with all sincerity and satisfaction. 3.5 Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to the Board Department of the High Court. 3.6 On 17.10.2015, the petitioner was communicated a letter asking him to remain personally present before the Registrar General on 20.10.2015 for personal hearing. The petitioner remained present before the Registrar General on the said date and put forward his case.
3.7 On 28.03.2016, by way of the impugned order, the petitioner's services were terminated by stating that as the petitioner was on a probation period of two years, his services are dispensed with immediate effect.
3.8 It is this order of termination dated 28.03.2016 which is under challenge by way of the present petition.
Page 4 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined
4. Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that though the order of termination, which prima facie seems like a termination simpliciter, is actually an order of stigmatic termination. Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya submitted that the order of termination dated 28.03.2016 is based on the allegations against the present petitioner of approaching a lady candidate by calling her and meeting her, for which the show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner, and the termination order was passed as a shortcut to the departmental proceedings, and had the departmental proceedings been carried out, it would have given the petitioner a fair opportunity to prove his innocence. 4.1 Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya submitted that though the order of termination prima facie seems to be an order of termination simpliciter from the "READ" and, more particularly, from item number 6 of that READ, there is a reference to the Page 5 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined final order passed by the competent authority dated 27.03.2016, which was considered by the Registrar General before passing the order of termination, and though at the time when the petition was filed, the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2016 was not on record, subsequently, the respondent had, by way of a further affidavit, placed the aforesaid order of termination dated 27.03.2016 on record, and from that, it was pointed out by Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya that the aforesaid order is divided into four parts. In the first paragraph, there is a reference to the incident for which the inquiry was ongoing. In the second paragraph of the said order, there is a mention of breach of Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011, and there is a reference to the Registrar (Vigilance) Report in the third paragraph, and in the fourth paragraph, there is an order whereby a view was taken to dispense with the services of the petitioner. 4.2 According to Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, the first paragraph, wherein there is a Page 6 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined reference to the ongoing departmental proceedings, was the foundation of the order, and the reference to the opinion of the Registrar (Vigilance) in the subsequent paragraph was the motive of the order, which would indicate that the respondents had decided to terminate the services of the petitioner only as a shortcut to the full-fledged departmental inquiry, which was based on a complaint made by a lady candidate, and therefore the order was stigmatic. 4.3 In support of her submissions, learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya relied upon the decision in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary versus Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar, reported in 2015 (15) SCC 151, more particularly paragraph Nos. 26 and 27 and submitted that if the misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision taken by the competent authority to dispense with the service of the delinquent, even if by a non-stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil and declare that, in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employee has been punished for an act of misconduct.
Page 7 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined 4.4 In view of this judgment, Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya submitted that in the instant case also, though an impression was created as if the termination is a termination simpliciter, this is a fit case for the Court to lift the veil and go behind the reasons for the termination in light of the Ratnesh Kumar Chaudhari (supra) case and the Court is required to examine the reason behind the termination.
4.5 Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya further relied upon the decision in the case of Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and Others versus Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, dated 22.10.2013 reported in 2013 (3) GLH 520, more particularly paragraphs 28 and 29 of the aforesaid decision, and submitted that when the authority is casting aspersions against the present petitioner, and if the order of termination is based on the alleged misconduct of the petitioner, in that case, at least the petitioner was required to be given minimum opportunity of defending herself by observing the Page 8 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined principles of natural justice, which could have been done by continuing with the full-fledged departmental inquiry. But in the instant case, during the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground of petitioner's alleged misconduct, and therefore, the same would be the basis of the termination, and accordingly, the impugned order of termination can be said to be stigmatic, and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.
4.6 Lastly, Learned Advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya relied upon a decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Pinky Meena versus High Court of Judicature For Rajasthan at Jodhpur, reported in 2025 (0) AIR (SC) 3013, more particularly paragraph numbers 24 and 25, and submitted that in that case also, the show-cause notice was issued for alleged misconduct, and without completing the departmental inquiry, the termination order was passed, which was held to be stigmatic, and therefore, in light of these decisions, the petitioner's case is squarely covered, as this is a fit case for the Court to lift Page 9 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined the veil behind the order of termination, and the Court may consider the fact that the order of termination, though prima facie seems like an order of termination simpliciter, is actually a stigmatic termination based on alleged misconduct alleged against the petitioner, and therefore, such termination can be held to be stigmatic, and such stigmatic termination is impermissible, and therefore, the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 is required to be quashed and set aside, and the petitioner may be directed to be reinstated to his original post with all incidental and consequential benefits.
5. Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi, appearing for the Gujarat High Court, vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that all that is required to be seen by the Court is the language of the order of termination dated 28.03.2016, which is only a four- line order, simply states that the services of the petitioner, who was on probation at the relevant point of time, are dispensed with immediate effect. Page 10 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi, further submitted that it is not proper to state that there was any inquiry initiated against the petitioner. 5.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi submitted that an inquiry can be said to have been initiated only upon the issuance of a charge-sheet, and in the instant case, only a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, which cannot be said to constitute the initiation of an inquiry. Only the petitioner's response was sought pursuant to the complaint made by a lady candidate that the petitioner approached her and met her in person, and it was only at a stage where there was some material against the present petitioner, which could not be termed as evidence, and when the departmental inquiry was not even initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge- sheet, there is no question of considering any evidence against the present petitioner, or that, on the basis of any inquiry report, the petitioner's services were terminated, simply for the reason that, upon initiation of a departmental inquiry, an inquiry officer would be appointed, proceedings would be Page 11 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined initiated, and then the report of the inquiry officer, if placed before the authority and considered, becomes the material for termination of the employee, only then such termination can be said to be a stigmatic termination.
5.2 Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi, further submitted that the order of termination dated 28.03.2016 does not refer to any departmental proceedings or any alleged misconduct against the present petitioner, and it would not affect the petitioner's future career to secure a job in any other organization, and therefore, the said order cannot be termed as a stigmatic order. 5.3 Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi further submitted that even if the order dated 27.03.2016 is looked at and considered, the said order only refers to the fact that there are some departmental proceedings against the petitioner, for which he has sought time, and that the Registrar (Vigilance) has formed an opinion that the petitioner's act can be said to be an act unbecoming of a Court employee in Page 12 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined view of Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011. 5.4 Learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Gupta versus U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and Others, reported in 1999 (2) SCC 21, more particularly paragraphs 33 and 34 of the said judgment, and by relying upon paragraph 33 of the said judgment, it was submitted that even if an inquiry is initiated against a delinquent, and even after a charge-sheet is issued and a reply is filed, and even after an inquiry officer is appointed, in that case also, before recording of the evidence and before the inquiry officer forms an opinion and submits the inquiry report, if a termination order is passed merely by referring to the aforesaid misconduct of the employee, such order of termination cannot be termed as a stigmatic termination, and therefore, the order of termination passed against the present petitioner, wherein no reasons are stated, cannot be said to be a stigmatic termination order, and therefore, the Court Page 13 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined may not interfere with the impugned order of termination passed by the High Court. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.
6. I have heard Learned Advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of the record, the Court finds that the impugned order of termination passed by the respondent is only a five-line order, which reads as under:-
"READ:-
01. High Court Office Order No.B.1304/2014, dated 26/09/2014.
02. Resumption report dated 13/10/2014.
03. High Court Show Cause Notice No.B.1328/75, dated 11/09/2015, issued to Mr.Ashok.A.Prajapati, Dy.Section Officer.
04. Reply dated 07/10/2015, submitted by Mr.Ashok.A. Prajapati, Dy.Section Officer.
05. Rule-12(2) of the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 2011.
06. Final Order passed by the Component Authority, dated 27/03/2016.
-: ORDER :-
No.Β.1304/2016 The services of Mr.Ashokkumar Atmaram Prajapati, Deputy Section Officer, Page 14 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined appointed vide Office Order cited in the preamble-1. on purely temporary basis, on probation for a period of two years, on the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat, are dispensed with. with immediate effect.
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT, SOLA, AHMEDABAD-380 060.
DATED: 28/03/2016 Sd/-
REGISTRAR GENERAL"
6.1 According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order was passed based on an order dated 27.03.2016, which reads as follows:
"Vide HCL. No. B. 1328/75. dated 17/10/2015 O.W. 3489.
Considered the entire record, prayer of the delinquent Mr. Ashokkumar Atmaram Prajapati vide his application dated 22.09.2025 (1) to grant him 10 to 15 days time to file his reply (2) to grant him a personal hearing and (3) to provide him photocopies of the concerned documents of the allegation against him were granted/ provided. In a personal hearing it is submitted by Mr. Prajapati to consider his reply. He has further stated that due to family dispute and enmity with complainant, false story was created by complainant. He has further stated that complainant has tried to spoil his career as a teacher previously. On the date of alleged incident, he was sick. While he was serving in Recruitment Department, Page 15 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined process for recruitment for the post of Peon was underwent. His one of best friends namely Mr. Lakhansinh Rabari, who was quite staying near to his house was never helped by him. Thus, why he would try to contact the complainant. He has further stated that in identification parade except he himself and Registrar (Recruitment and Finance) and Registrar (Vigilance) nobody were present. Thus, further investigation should be carried out as well as further identification parade should be continued. He is serving in Board Department very sincerely and requested to consider his career.
It appear that Registrar (Vigilance) has reported that prima facie Mr. Prajapati has committed breach of Rule 4 (1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct Discipline and Appeal) Rules 2011 and thereby he has acted in a manner which is unbecoming of a court employee.
The Prayer to the delinquent Mr. Prajapati in a personal hearing has no relevance to consider this case. Mr. Prajapati is appointed in the cadre of Deputy Section Officer or the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat on probation of two year and his appointment is purely ad-hoc and temporary and is liable to be terminated at anytime without notice. He has resumed his duty w.e.f. 13.10.2014 and has not completed his probation period. From the report of the Registrar (Vigilance) and seriousness of allegations, service of Mr. Prajapati is not satisfactory and his service should be dispensed with at once. Hence following is the order.
ORDER Page 16 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Service of Mr. Ashokkumar Atmaram Prajapati, Deputy Section Officer on the establishment of the High Court of Gujarat, should be dispensed with at once.
Sd/-
Registrar General 27.03.2016"
6.2 I am reproducing the aforesaid order dated 27.03.2016, as it is now a matter of record that the said order having been placed on record through a further affidavit by the respondents, and if the aforesaid order is reproduced in this case, the controversy can be adjudicated more effectively, as it is the case advanced by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya that, although the order of termination prima facie appears to be a termination simpliciter, considering the nature of the allegation against the present petitioner, the Court is required to examine and evaluate the order of termination in light of the material on the basis of which it was passed.
6.3 The first show-cause notice dated 20.07.2015 issued to the petitioner under Rule Page 17 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011. Rule 4 of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011 reads as under:
"Conduct
4. General :-
(1) Every Court employee shall at all times :
(i) maintain absolute integrity.
(ii) maintain devotion to the duty.
(iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Court employee.
(2) No Court employee shall act in a manner pre-judicial to discipline and good order in the Registry or in Court.
(3) Promptness and Courtesy.
No Court employee shall
(i) in the performance of his official duties, act in a discourteous manner.
(ii) in his official dealings with the public or otherwise adopt dilatory tactics or willfully cause delay in disposal of the work assigned to him/her.
(4) Prohibition of sexual harassment of working women.
(i) No Court employee shall indulge in any act of sexual harassment of any women at work place.
(ii) The Registrar General, who is the Head of the Department shall take Page 18 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined appropriate steps to prevent sexual harassment to any women at work place. Explanation : For the purpose of this Rule "Sexual harassment" includes such unwelcome sexually determined behaviour, whether directly or otherwise such as
(a) Physical contact and advances;
(b) demand or request for sexual favours;
(c) sexually coloured remarks;
(d) showing any pornography; or
(e) any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature."
6.4 Thereafter, according to the case of the petitioner, before the termination of the petitioner, one more show-cause notice dated 11.09.2015 was issued, of course under a different set of Rules i.e. under Rule 12(2) of the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 2011. Rule 12 of the said rule reads as under:
"12. Probation:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Page 19 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined these Rules, a person appointed to Class-
I, Class-II or Class-IV service or post by direct recruitment, shall be on probation for a period of two years and in case of a promotion to any post or service, he / she shall be on probation for a period of one year.
(2) If it appears at any time during or at the end of the period of probation that services of the employee concerned are not satisfactory, his / her services may be dispensed with or in case of any promotee, he/ she may be reverted to his substantive post, without any prior notice."
6.5 Both the show-cause notices were issued under different sets of Rules, which would be relevant for determining the issue on hand, for the reason that the petitioner's explanation was sought under the Gujarat High Court (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011, whereas the petitioner's termination order was passed by exercising powers under the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 2011, which indicates that the termination was not in pursuance of the departmental inquiry ongoing at the relevant time, as alleged by the petitioner, a contention disputed by learned advocate Mr. Page 20 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Ishan Joshi and hence the order of termination was passed in exercise of an altogether different set of Rules.
6.6 As stated by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, the order of termination was passed on the foundation of the alleged misconduct referred to in the order dated 27.03.2016, and therefore, the Court was required to consider not only the order dated 28.03.2016, which prima facie appears to be an order of termination simpliciter, but also to examine the order dated 27.03.2016, which formed the basis for the administration to pass the order on 28.03.2016.
6.7 On perusal of the order dated 27.03.2016, the Court finds that in paragraph 1 of the aforesaid order, there is a reference to the petitioner, who had requested 15 days' time to file his reply and to grant a personal hearing pursuant to the show-cause notice, and in the subsequent paragraph, it refers to the Page 21 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined report of the Registrar (Vigilance), which only states that, prima facie, it appears that the petitioner has committed a breach of Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011. 6.8 It is an admitted position that after the show-cause notice, when the petitioner submitted his reply on 07.10.2015, and until the order of termination on 28.03.2016, during the interregnum period, the petitioner was never served with any charge sheet, nor was any inquiry officer appointed for the alleged misconduct against him, and therefore, the stage of evidence had not reached.
6.9 Now, in this factual background, the order of termination is required to be considered, and the Court is required to examine whether such order of termination can be said to be a termination simpliciter or whether it can be regarded as a stigmatic order of termination of a punitive nature.
Page 22 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined 6.10 To determine the aforesaid aspect, the Court is required to consider the submissions, and more particularly, the decisions cited by learned counsels for both sides.
7. Learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya relied upon paragraphs 26 and 27 of the decision in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary versus Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, Bihar, reported in 2015 (15) SCC 151, which reads as under:
"26. In the facts of Palak Modi case, the Court proceeded to state that there is a marked distinction between the concepts of satisfactory completion of probation and successful passing of the training/test held during or at the end of the period of probation, which are sine qua non for confirmation of a probationer and the Bank's right to punish a probationer for any defined misconduct, misbehaviour or misdemeanour. In a given case, the competent authority may, while deciding the issue of suitability of the probationer to be confirmed, ignore the act(s) of misconduct and terminate his service without casting any aspersion or stigma which may adversely affect his future prospects but, if the misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision taken by the competent authority to dispense with the Page 23 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined service of the probationer albeit by a non-stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished the employee for an act of misconduct.
27. In the case at hand, it is clear as crystal that on the basis of a complaint made by a member of the Legislative Assembly, an enquiry was directed to be held. It has been innocuously stated that the complaint was relating to illegal selection on the ground that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification and was appointed to the post of Chest Therapist. The report that was submitted by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department eloquently states about the conduct and character of the appellant. The stand taken in the counter affidavit indicates about the behaviour of the appellant. It is also noticeable that the authorities after issuing the notice to show cause and obtaining a reply from the delinquent employee did not supply the documents. Be that as it may, no regular enquiry was held and he was visited with the punishment of dismissal. It is well settled in law, if an ex parte enquiry is held behind the back of the delinquent employee and there are stigmatic remarks that would constitute foundation and not the motive. Therefore, when the enquiry commenced and thereafter without framing of charges or without holding an enquiry the delinquent employee was dismissed, definitely, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. It cannot be equated with a situation of dropping of the disciplinary proceedings and passing an order of termination simpliciter. In that event it would have been motive and Page 24 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined could not have travelled to the realm of the foundation. We may hasten to add that had the appellant would have been visited with minor punishment, the matter possibly would have been totally different. That is not the case. It is also not the case that he was terminated solely on the ground of earlier punishment. In fact, he continued in service thereafter. As the report would reflect that there are many an allegation subsequent to the imposition of punishment relating to his conduct, misbehaviour and disobedience. The Vigilance Department, in fact, had conducted an enquiry behind the back of the appellant. The stigma has been cast in view of the report received by the Central Vigilance Commission which was ex parte and when that was put to the delinquent employee, holding of a regular enquiry was imperative. It was not an enquiry only to find out that he did not possess the requisite qualification. Had that been so, the matter would have been altogether different. The allegations in the report of the Vigilance Department pertain to his misbehaviour, conduct and his dealing with the officers and the same also gets accentuated by the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Thus, by no stretch of imagination it can be accepted that it is termination simpliciter. The Division Bench has expressed the view that no departmental enquiry was required to be held as it was only an enquiry to find out the necessary qualification for the post of Chest Therapist. Had the factual score been so, the said analysis would have been treated as correct, but unfortunately the exposition of factual matrix is absolutely different. Under such circumstances, it is extremely difficult to concur with the view expressed by the Division Bench."Page 25 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined 7.1 The observations made in the above paragraph indicate that if any ex-parte inquiry is held behind the back of the delinquent, and there are stigmatic remarks which would constitute the foundation and not the motive, and if, without framing of charges and without holding an inquiry, the delinquent employee is dismissed, it would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the same cannot be equated with the situation of dropping departmental proceedings and passing an order of termination simpliciter.
8. In the case of Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and Others versus Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, reported in 2013 (3) G.L.H. 520, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 28 and 29, observed as under:
"28. Having gone through the salient judgments on the issue in hand, one thing which emerges very clearly is that, if it is a case of deciding the suitability of a probationer, and for that limited purpose any inquiry is conducted, the same cannot be faulted as such. However, if during the course of such an inquiry any allegations are made against the person concerned, Page 26 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined which result into a stigma, he ought to be afforded the minimum protection which is contemplated under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India even though he may be a probationer. The protection is very limited viz. to inform the person concerned about the charges against him, and to give him a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Having noted the facts as they have emerged on the record, can the preliminary inquiry conducted against the respondent in the present case be said to be an innocent one only to assess her suitability? Is it not apparent that certain aspersions were cast on the character of the respondent during the course of the conduct of this inquiry on her suitability? If that was so, was it not expected from a High judicial institution like the High Court to afford her the minimum opportunity to defend herself? In Shamsher Singh (supra) this Court has observed that the Subordinate Judges are under the care and custody of the High Court. This custody and care certainly requires the High Court to afford the Subordinate Judges the minimum opportunity which is otherwise available to every other civil servant under Article 311(2).
29. Having noted the aforesaid legal position, we must pay heed to the lament of this Court as expressed in the case of Ishwar Chand Jain v. High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Ors. reported in 1988 (3) SCC 370. In that matter, the probationary service of an Additional District and Sessions Judge was terminated on the basis of High Court's conclusion regarding suitability. This Court, however, found that the action taken against the appellant was basically because of some Page 27 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined grievances made by the members of the Bar, and there was no justifiable material available on the record of the Court. The members of the Bar Association had passed a resolution condemning him on a trifling matter, as observed by this court. This Court observed in the end of paragraph 7 in following words:-
"7. .......If the members of the Bar Association pass resolution against the presiding officers working in subordinate courts without there being any justifiable cause it would be difficult for judicial officers to perform their judicial functions and discharge their responsibilities in an objective and unbiased manner. We are distressed to find that the High Court instead of protecting the appellant took this incident into consideration in assessing the appellant's work and conduct."
In this matter, the Bar Association passed a resolution against the Additional Sessions Judge for not detaining a witness on the request of the counsel for the party to enable him to bring summons for effecting service on him, without there being any requisition from the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. This Court noted that if such resolutions are passed, it will be difficult for the judicial officers to perform their function in an objective and unbiased manner. This Court was constrained to observe that the High Court had failed to protect the appellant. What had distressed this Court was that the High Court, instead of protecting the appellant had taken into account the unjustified allegation Page 28 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined made by the bar, while assessing the work and conduct leading to discontinuation of his probation services. The same appears to be the situation in the present case."
8.1 The above observation also indicates that if any allegation made against a person during the course of an inquiry results in stigma, he ought to be afforded the minimum protection contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, even if he is a probationer. In the instant case, according to learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya, the present petitioner was not given a full opportunity to defend his case through full-fledged departmental inquiry, and therefore, the case of the petitioner can be said to be one of stigmatic termination.
9. Lastly, the decision relied upon by learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya is the case of Pinky Meena versus High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, reported in AIR 2025 SC page 3013, wherein, in paragraphs 24 and 25, Page 29 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"24 The services of a probationer could result either in a confirmation in the post or ended by way of termination simpliciter. However, if a probationer is terminated from service owing to a misconduct as a punishment, the termination would cause a stigma on him. If a probationer is unsuitable for a job and has been terminated then such a case is non-stigmatic as it is a termination simpliciter. Thus, the performance of a probationer has to be considered in order to ascertain whether it has been satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If the performance of a probationer has been unsatisfactory, he is liable to be terminated by the employer without conducting any inquiry. No right of hearing is also reserved with the probationer and hence, there would be no violation of principles of natural justice in such a case.
25. As noted, if a termination from service is not visited with any stigma and neither are there any civil consequences and nor is founded on misconduct, then, it would be a case of termination simpliciter. On the other hand, an assessment of remarks pertaining to the discharge of duties during the probationary period even without a finding of misconduct and termination on the basis of such remarks or assessment will be by way of punishment because such remarks or assessment would be stigmatic. According to the dictionary meaning, stigma is indicative of a blemish, disgrace Page 30 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined indicating a deviation from a norm. Stigma might be inferred from the references quoted in the termination order although the order itself might not contain anything offensive. Where there is a discharge from service after prescribed probation period was completed and the discharge order contain allegations against a probationer and surrounding circumstances also showed that discharge was not based solely on the assessment of the employee's work and conduct during probation, the termination was held to be stigmatic and punitive vide Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja vs. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC
71."
10. As against that, learned advocate Mr. Ishan Joshi relied upon the decision in the case of Radheshyam Gupta versus U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Limited and others, reported in (1999) 2 SCC 21, wherein, after referring to a number of decisions, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 33 and 34 observed as under:
"33.It will be noticed from the above decisions that the termination of the services of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactory will not be punitive Page 31 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined inasmuch as the above facts are merely the motive and not the foundation. The reason why they are the motive is that the assessment is not done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the Officer, as stated by Shah, J. (as he then was) in Ram Narayan Das's case. It is done only with a view to decide whether he is to be retained or continued in service. The position is not different even if a preliminary inquiry is held because the purpose of a preliminary inquiry is to find out if there is prima facie evidence or material to initiate a regular departmental inquiry. It has been so decided in Champaklal's case. The purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to find out misconduct on the part of the Officer and if a termination follows without giving an opportunity, it will not be bad. Even in a case where a regular departmental inquiry is started, a charge memo issued, reply obtained, and an enquiry Officer is appointed - if at that point of time, the inquiry is dropped and a simple notice of termination is passed, thee same will not be punitive because the enquiry Officer has not recorded evidence nor given any findings on the charges. That is what is held in Sukh Raj Bahadur's case and in Benjamin's case. In the latter case, the departmental inquiry was stopped because the employer was not sure of establishing the quilt of the employee. In all these cases the allegations against the employee merely raised a cloud on his conduct and as pointed by Krishna Iyer, J. in Page 32 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined Gujrat Steel Tubes case, the employer was entitled to say that he would not continue an employee against whom allegations were made the truth of which the employer was not interested to ascertain. In fact, the employer, by opting to pass a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of appointment or as permitted by the rules was conferring a benefit on the employee by passing a simple order of termination so that the employee would not suffer from any stigma which would attach to the rest of his career if a dismissal or other punitive order was passed. The above are all examples where the allegations whose truth has not been found, and were merely the motive.
34. But in cases where the termination is preceded by an inquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definitive nature are arrived at behind the back of the Officer and where on the basis of such a report, the termination order is issued, such an order will be violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the purpose of the inquiry is to find out the truth of the allegations with a view to punish him and not merely to gather evidence for a future regular departmental inquiry. In such cases, the termination is to be treated as based or founded upon misconduct and will be punitive. These are obviously not cases where the employer feels that there is a mere cloud against the employees conduct but are cases where the employer has virtually accepted the definitive and clear Page 33 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined findings of the Inquiry Officer, which are all arrived at behind the back of the employee - even though such acceptance of findings is not recorded in the order of termination. That is why the misconduct is the foundation and not merely the motive, in such cases."
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 33 observed that there can be two types of inquiries: one inquiry which could be initiated merely to ascertain the suitability of a delinquent in the organization on the basis of an assessment of his work, which cannot be termed as punitive; whereas the other kind of inquiry is a regular departmental inquiry, where even if a charge memo is issued, a reply is obtained and an inquiry officer is appointed, but if at any point of time the inquiry is dropped and a simple notice of termination is passed, the same will not be punitive because the inquiry officer has neither recorded evidence nor given any findings on the charges. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in cases where the allegations against the employee Page 34 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined merely raise a cloud on his conduct and when the employer is not interested in ascertaining whether the allegations are true or not and decides to pass a simple order of termination, the same would not suffer from any stigma which would affect the rest of his career as would be the case if a dismissal or other punitive order were passed, and in all such cases where the allegations, whose truth has not been found, were merely the motive, such orders cannot be said to be stigmatic orders.
11.1 In paragraph 34, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when a termination order is preceded by an inquiry and evidence is received and findings as to misconduct of a definite nature are arrived at behind the back of the officer, such an order of termination based on such material would be punitive, and the same can be said to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice; therefore, such an order of termination is required to be treated as founded upon Page 35 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined misconduct and can be said to be punitive. In the instant case, except for issuance of a show- cause notice and calling for a reply, there is nothing to indicate that the said reply was even considered by the respondents. The order dated 27.03.2016, which is reproduced in the foregoing paragraph, also does not state anything about the nature of the reply filed by the petitioner or whether that reply was considered to arrive at a conclusion, even prima facie, that the petitioner is guilty of the alleged misconduct.
12. In the instant case, even a charge- sheet has not been issued against the present petitioner and therefore there is no question of initiation of an inquiry and its subsequent dropping. The Registrar (Vigilance) has merely formed a prima facie opinion that such an act of the petitioner cannot be said to be in consonance with Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011, and therefore the termination order has been passed in exercise of powers under Rule 12 Page 36 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined of the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 2011, which empowers the authority to dispense with the services of a probationer without any prior notice. Even the language of the order of termination would also indicate that the order does not state anything about the alleged misconduct for which the petitioner is insisting on the holding of a departmental enquiry, and even if the said order is produced before any future prospective employer of the present petitioner, the same would never indicate that there were any kind of aspersions cast by the respondents against the present petitioner, nor would the same come in the way of the present petitioner in securing any future job. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 cannot be termed as a stigmatic order of punitive nature, as the departmental enquiry was never initiated. The reply filed pursuant to the show cause notice by the petitioner was never considered by the respondents. The same, Page 37 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/6687/2016 JUDGMENT DATED: 11/03/2026 undefined therefore, cannot be said to be the foundation of the impugned order dated 28.03.2016 and, consequently, such termination cannot be termed as a stigmatic termination and hence the same is not required to be interfered with.
13. Further, the show cause notice was issued under Rule 4(1) of the High Court of Gujarat (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2011, whereas the termination order was passed in exercise of powers under the High Court of Gujarat (Recruitment and Condition of Service of Officers and Staff) Rules, 2011, and therefore it cannot be said that the petitioner's services were dispensed with by taking into consideration the alleged misconduct alleged against the present petitioner.
14. Resultantly, the petition fails and the same is required to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) Pallavi Page 38 of 38 Uploaded by PALLAVI PRABHUDAS PANCHAL(HC01403) on Mon Mar 16 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Mar 16 20:53:23 IST 2026