The Executive Engineer And Ors. vs Shantuben Chhaganbhai Makwana on 8 August, 2007
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner was serving from
six years and he could not have been removed
after rendering such service and accordingly the
petitioner made a representation to the
respondent authorities not to remove him. He has
also placed reliance on the judgements of the
Apex Court in the case of Executive Engineer Vs.
Shantuben Chhaganbhai Makwana, (2007) 3 GCD 2133,
Narendrakumar Narsinhbhai Vankar Vs. Manager
Medicinal And Aromatic Plants, (2016) 4 GLR 3534,
State of Gujarat Vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor ,
(2021) 2 GLR 1211, Bilimora Nagarpalika Vs.
Jashuben Jashavantbhai Solanki, (2013) 1 GLR 845
and on the judgement of Coordinate Bench of this
Court dated 25.07.2018 passed in Special Civil
Application No.12537 of 2011. In support of his
submissions, he has submitted that in all the
aforesaid judgements, it is held that if an
employee has completed 240 days of work, he
cannot be removed without notice and hence, since
the petitioner was removed without notice, the
Page 2 of 4
Downloaded on : Wed Jan 12 07:40:37 IST 2022
C/SCA/1210/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/12/2021
petitioner may be continued in service. It is
further submitted that "respondents have mischief
with the muster roll" and the muster roll was
forged and hence, the impugned order of removal
may be set aside. It is also submitted that the
petitioner, though was appointed as Guard, he was
giveng the work of Computer Clerk. It is
submitted that the respondents are prejudice
against the petitioner and hence, the impugned
order may be cancelled. No further submissions
are advanced.