RAM SUHAG KUMAR Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Udit Mehta, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent authorities.

(2.) In this petition, challenge is made to the order dated 12.08.2004 passed by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner was terminated as probationer. It is stated on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed on 23.07.1999 as Medical Officer and till termination order came to be passed on 12.08.2004, there was no break in his service, and thus the date on which the impugned order came to be passed, the petitioner had put more than five years of service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Government did not have any power to pass the order after 23.07.2003, since as per Rules, the petitioner could not have been continued as probationer beyond that period. It is further contended that if the language of the impugned order is seen, the petitioner was terminated for misconduct. It is therefore contended that even if it is held that the Government had power to pass the order even after four years, the order impugned in this petition is a short cut to departmental inquiry and therefore, the same needs to be quashed and set aside. Learned Advocate for the petitioner, in support of the first contention that the Government did not have power, has relied on the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 1913 of 1998 (C.M. Rathod V/s. Gujarat Maritime Board) as confirmed by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 855 of 1998.

(3.) Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Mehta by referring to affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Government, first dated 16.02.2006 and second dated 16.05.2010, vehemently contended that the petitioner misbehaved and committed misconduct during probation period and therefore he could not have been continued in Government service and therefore the service of the petitioner came to be terminated as probationer. It is contended that this Court may not interfere in the order impugned in this petition.