Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1055 (GUJ)

Darji Bhartiben Jashubhai v. State of Gujarat

2014-09-26

ABHILASHA KUMARI

body2014
ORDER : Abhilasha Kumari, J. Rule., Mr.D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader, wavies service of notice of Rule for the respondents, in each petition. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and with the consent of learned counsel for the respective parties, the petitions are being heard and decided, finally. 2. The challenge in this group of petitions is to the impugned orders of different dates passed by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, terminating the services of the petitioners herein as Administrators-cum-Cooks and directing them to deposit different amounts. The petitioners have also challenged the orders of different dates passed by the Collector, Banaskantha, whereby the appeals filed by them, against the orders of termination, have been rejected. 3. As similar issues of law and fact arise in these petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. 4. The brief factual background in each petition is as follow: (1) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.127 of 2014, Darji Bhartiben Jasubhai, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 2008, at the Mid-Day Meal Scheme Center No.47, Mota Sada Pagar Kendra Primary School, Taluka:Danta, District: Banaskantha. A Showcause Notice dated 27.05.2013, was issued to her by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause notice on 29.05.2013. However, her services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing her to deposit an amount of Rs.963/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 08.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (2) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.128 of 2014, Vashrambhai Dharambhai Chamar, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1989, at the Mid- Day Meal Scheme, Jetada Primary School, Center No.30, Taluka: Tharad, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 23.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause notice on 28.05.2013. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.5,255/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause notice on 28.05.2013. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.5,255/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (3) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.129 of 2014, Parmar Khodabhai Gagabhai, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 2003, at the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Raiya Primary School, Center No.71, Taluka: Deodar, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 24.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. His services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.1,559/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 14.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (4) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.130 of 2014, Khetabhai Khodabhai Daiya, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1999, at the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Khara Primary School, Center No.36, Taluka: Bhabhar, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 23.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause notice on 28.05.2013. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.783/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (5) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.131 of 2014, Ghori Ikbalhusain Pirozkhan, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1993, at the Mid- Day Meal Scheme, Juna Deesa Primary School No.1, Center No.30, Taluka: Deesa, District: Banaskantha. (5) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.131 of 2014, Ghori Ikbalhusain Pirozkhan, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1993, at the Mid- Day Meal Scheme, Juna Deesa Primary School No.1, Center No.30, Taluka: Deesa, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 23.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. The petitioner relied to the Show-cause notice on 28.05.2013. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.3,336/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 08.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (6) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.132 of 2014, Chauhan Bhagwanbhai Arjanbhai, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 2000, at the Mid- Day Meal Scheme, Dhanapura (Dho) Primary School, Center No.19, Taluka: Amirgadh, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 20.05.2013 was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause notice on 28.05.2013. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.481/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 08.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (7) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.133 of 2014, Prahladji Jivanji Thakor, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1999, at the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Kanjara Primary School, Center No.68, Taluka: Deesa, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 27.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. The petitioner replied to the Show-cause notice on 31.05.2013. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. However, his services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (8) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.134 of 2014, Sindhi Mafamiya Alamkhan, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1984, at the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Vaghtol Primary School, Center No.4, Taluka: Dantiwada, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 27.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. His services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.166/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (9) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.135 of 2014, Chauhan Babusingh Hathisinh, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1999, at the Mid- Day Meal Scheme, Mandana (d) Primary School, Center No.130, Taluka: Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 23.05.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. His services were terminated by an order dated 31.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector, directing him to deposit an amount of Rs.3,260/-. The said amount has been deposited by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. (10) The petitioner of Special Civil Application No.136 of 2014, Mafatlal Laherchand Joshi, was working as Sanchalak-cum-Cook since 1984, at the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Vasana Primary School, Center No.84, Taluka: Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. A Show-cause Notice dated 22.02.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. His services were terminated by an order dated 23.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. A Show-cause Notice dated 22.02.2013, was issued to him by the Deputy Collector, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, Palanpur, District: Banaskantha. His services were terminated by an order dated 23.05.2013, passed by the Deputy Collector. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Collector. By an order dated 09.10.2013, the Collector rejected the same. An application for review was made by the petitioner, but it came to be filed on the ground that there is no provision for review. 5. Mr.Premal R. Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners, has submitted that the petitioners were appointed by the Mamlatdar, who is their appointing authority, as can be seen from the appointment orders annexed to the petitions. In the said appointment orders, there is a specific condition that the Mamlatdar is empowered to remove the petitioners in the event that certain conditions, as enumerated therein, come to pass. It is clearly stated in the appointment orders that the Mamlatdar would have the power to remove the Administrators-cum-Cooks. Further, by an amended Government Resolution (GR) dated 04.11.2011, the power to appoint and remove Administrators-cum-Cooks under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme has been withdrawn from the School Management Committee and given exclusively to the Mamlatdar. The earlier GR dated 22.03.2011, has been canceled by the GR dated 04.11.2011, and such power has specifically been vested in the Mamlatdar. 5.1 It is further submitted that in the present cases the Deputy Collector has issued Show-cause Notices to the petitioners and passed the impugned orders of termination, even though he is not empowered to do so. The Show-cause Notices and orders of termination of the petitioners, passed by the Deputy Collector are, therefore, without jurisdiction and authority of law. As such, they cannot be permitted to stand. 5.2 It is contended that in the appeals preferred by the petitioners before the Collector, against the orders of termination, this point was specifically raised. However, the Collector has rejected the appeals by the impugned orders that have been passed in a general manner, without referring to the specific provisions of any GR. Only general observations have been made, asserting that the Deputy Collector has the power to terminate the services of the petitioners without showing the source of such power. The specific provisions of GR dated 04.11.2011, whereby this power is vested in the Mamlatdar, have not even been referred to. Only general observations have been made, asserting that the Deputy Collector has the power to terminate the services of the petitioners without showing the source of such power. The specific provisions of GR dated 04.11.2011, whereby this power is vested in the Mamlatdar, have not even been referred to. The orders of the Collector are, therefore, based upon assumptions and presumptions, as they do not specifically address the issue of jurisdiction, in reference to the prevalent GRs, that has been raised by the petitioners. 5.3 It is submitted that in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government, it has not been stated that the GR dated 04.11.2011 has been amended, modified or canceled by any GR. As the said GR is still in force, only the Mamlatdar has the power to remove the petitioners. 5.4 It is submitted that the findings rendered by the Collector in the impugned orders are, therefore, without any basis and contrary to the GR dated 04.11.2011. The findings that in all the appointment orders of the petitioners, the power to remove them are vested in the Mamlatdar, Deputy Collector or Collector, are incorrect and presumptuous and not supported by any GR. The appointment orders of the petitioners clearly state that it is the Mamlatdar who is empowered to remove them. There is no mention of the Deputy Collector or the Collector in this regard. 5.5 It is emphatically submitted that the petitioners have been deprived of one stage of appeal, which they would have got, had the Mamlatdar issued the orders of termination. They could then have challenged the said orders before the Deputy Collector. If aggrieved by the orders of the Deputy Collector, they could have preferred appeals before the Collector. In the present cases, a valuable right of appeal has been frustrated as one channel has been cut short by the Deputy Collector by passing the orders of termination. The petitioners have wrongly been deprived of their legal rights and prejudice has been caused to them. 5.6 It is further contended that by a communication dated 24/25- January, 2012, the Commissioner, Mid-Day Meal Scheme has clearly written to the Collector that the power of appointing and removing Administrators-cum-Cooks in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme is vested with the Mamlatdar. It is stated that against the order of the Mamlatdar, an appeal would lie to the Prant Officer (Deputy Collector), as per GR dated 18.05.2011. It is stated that against the order of the Mamlatdar, an appeal would lie to the Prant Officer (Deputy Collector), as per GR dated 18.05.2011. The appeal against an order passed by the Deputy Collector would lie before the Collector, and the decision of the Collector would be final. It is submitted that the Deputy Collector and Collector have acted in contravention of the letter dated 24/25- January, 2012 of the Commissioner, therefore, it is evident that the impugned orders, which are without jurisdiction, are bad in law. The Deputy Collector cannot be permitted to usurp the powers clearly vested in the Mamlatdar, de hors the GR dated 04.11.2011, and the above clarification of the Commissioner. On the above grounds, it is urged that the impugned orders be quashed and set aside and the petitioners be reinstated in service 5.7 Learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 , to support his submission that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State Government cannot fill in the lacunae, give fresh reasons, or supplement the impugned orders of the Collector. 6. Mr. D.M. Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondents in each petition, has supported the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Collector and the Collector. He has submitted that the petitions have become infructuous as the respective terms for which the petitioners were appointed have now come to an end. The petitioners were appointed only for a specific period, for example, till the end of the second semester in Special Civil Application No.127 of 2014, which period is over. The petitions survive only for academic purposes as no substantive relief of reinstatement can be given to the petitioners. 6.1 It is submitted that the Collector has dealt with the issue of jurisdiction raised by the petitioners in the orders passed by him, in relation to the orders of the Deputy Collector, against which appeals were preferred before the Collector. 6.2 It is contended that the Mid-Day Meal Scheme was introduced in the year 1984 by GR dated 09.11.1984. From the very inception of the Scheme, the overall supervision and control was with the Deputy Collector and Collector. 6.2 It is contended that the Mid-Day Meal Scheme was introduced in the year 1984 by GR dated 09.11.1984. From the very inception of the Scheme, the overall supervision and control was with the Deputy Collector and Collector. Referring to GR dated 24.04.1985, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has contended that this GR gives the power of supervision to the Deputy Collector. In fact, it casts a duty upon the Deputy Collector to ensure the effective implementation of the Scheme. The Deputy Collector is also entrusted with the duty of taking action by issuing a Show-cause Notice, in case of misconduct. 6.3 Referring to the Government Resolution dated 22.03.2011, it is submitted that the power to remove an Administrator-cum-Cook is vested in the Mamlatdar or any such authority as empowered by the State Government, which also includes the Deputy Collector. 6.4 On the basis of the above submissions, it is urged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that the impugned orders of termination, being just and proper, may not be interfered with and the petitions be rejected. 6.5 In support of his submissions that the petitioners may not be reinstated, the learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A.Masilamani, reported in (2013)6 SCC 530 . 7. In rejoinder, Mr.Premal R.Joshi, learned advocate for the petitioners has submitted that it is incorrect to say that the petitions have become infructuous, as by an order dated 10.01.2014 passed by this Court, it is directed that all appointments made by the respondents against the posts occupied by the petitioners would be subject to the final decision of the petition. It is submitted that appointment orders are issued to the same person every six months and the said person is continued. The petitioners have not been issued fresh appointment orders after their termination. If the petitioners are successful in the present petitions, they can be given work after the academic session is over. Some of the petitioners have been working for over twenty-five years. The petitioners have all paid the fines imposed by the respondents. It is urged that the orders of termination, having been passed by the Deputy Collector, who has no power to terminate the services of the petitioners, may be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be reinstated. 8. The petitioners have all paid the fines imposed by the respondents. It is urged that the orders of termination, having been passed by the Deputy Collector, who has no power to terminate the services of the petitioners, may be quashed and set aside and the petitioners may be reinstated. 8. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 9. The petitioners have challenged the impugned orders of termination of their services only on the ground of jurisdiction, and not on merits. This Court, therefore, proposes to examine the matters only to that extent. 10. It emerges from the record that the Mid-Day Meal Scheme was first introduced in the State of Gujarat, by a Government Resolution dated 09.11.1984, issued by the Department of Education. By that Government Resolution, the Collector was vested with the power of overall supervision of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and was empowered to form a Committee consisting of certain officers, as mentioned therein, for its proper implementation. By another Government Resolution dated 24.04.1985, the duties of certain officers, for the proper implementation of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, were delineated. The Deputy Collector was made answerable to the Collector and was entrusted with the duty of ensuring the proper implementation of the Scheme. He also had the power to carry out inspections and report to the Collector, directly, regarding any problems found in the implementation of the Scheme. This power included the power to inspect the accounts and expenses and to direct the officer, in whose jurisdiction it falls, to take appropriate action, in case any irregularities are found. Similarly, the duties of the Mamlatdar were also delineated and he was entrusted to ensure the implementation of the Scheme at the Taluka level. A perusal of the above GRs reveal that neither of them specifically vest the power of appointment or removal on any one specific authority, though the Collector is vested with the power of overall supervision of the Scheme in the concerned District. Thereafter, by Government Resolution dated 23.03.2011, the power of the Collector was decentralized and the power of appointment of an Administrator-cum-Cook in the Mid- Day Meal Scheme devolved upon the School Management Committees. 11. Thereafter, by Government Resolution dated 23.03.2011, the power of the Collector was decentralized and the power of appointment of an Administrator-cum-Cook in the Mid- Day Meal Scheme devolved upon the School Management Committees. 11. It is significant to note that after the coming into force of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the State Government has issued an amended Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011, which amends the Government Resolutions dated 22.03.2011, and 02.08.2011, and takes away the power of appointment and removal of an Administrator-cum-Cook from the School Management Committee, specifically vesting it in the Mamlatdar. There is no other Government Resolution of a later date that takes away this power from the Mamlatdar on record. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has not produced any material to the contrary. 12. The conclusion that emerges from a collective perusal of the Government Resolutions referred to hereinabove is that the specific power of appointment and removal of an Administrator-cum-Cook vests exclusively in the Mamlatdar, as per the Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011, which still holds good. It may, no doubt, be true that the Collector and Deputy Collector are empowered to look into the overall supervision of the Mid-Day Meal Scheme and ensure its proper implementation. However, these are general powers. When, by a Government Resolution, the specific power of appointment and removal has been conferred upon a specific authority, that is, the Mamlatdar, that authority alone is empowered to exercise such power. It cannot be accepted, as is being urged by the learned Assistant Government Pleader, that the general and overall powers of supervision conferred upon the Collector and Deputy Collector, also includes the power of appointment and removal, when such power is not conferred upon them but has been specifically given to the Mamlatdar. The Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011, reflects the policy decision of the State Government in this regard. When specific powers have been vested upon the Mamlatdar, no other authority, including the Deputy Collector, can legally exercise that power, even though he may be an officer superior to the Mamlatdar. 13. The view of this Court is fortified by the letter dated 24.09.2012, of the Commissioner, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, addressed to the Collector. It is clearly stated therein that the power to appoint and remove an Administrator-cum-Cook in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme vests in the Mamlatdar. 13. The view of this Court is fortified by the letter dated 24.09.2012, of the Commissioner, Mid-Day Meal Scheme, addressed to the Collector. It is clearly stated therein that the power to appoint and remove an Administrator-cum-Cook in the Mid-Day Meal Scheme vests in the Mamlatdar. An aggrieved party can prefer an appeal against the order of the Mamlatdar to the Deputy Collector, and if still aggrieved, to the Collector, whose decision shall be final. 14. In the present cases, the power of removal of the petitioners has not been exercised by the Mamlatdar, who has appointed them, but by the Deputy Collector, who has not been specifically empowered in this regard. The Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011, is very clear and unambiguous. By virtue of the said Government Resolution, the power of appointment and removal is solely conferred upon the Mamlatdar and no other authority. The exercise of the power of removal, not conferred upon the Deputy Collector, which is specifically conferred upon the Mamlatdar, amounts to an usurpation of power by the Deputy Collector. Any orders passed in exercise of a power not vested in the Deputy Collector are without jurisdiction, null and void ab-initio. 15. In the impugned orders, the Collector has simply glossed over the aspect of jurisdiction in spite of the fact that it was specifically raised by the petitioners. A perusal of the said orders indicates that apart from being couched in general terms, the issue of jurisdiction has not been dealt with by reference to even a single Government Resolution, including the Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011. The appeals preferred by the petitioners have been rejected without addressing the specific issue raised by them. Merely by stating that the Deputy Collector has the power of removal, without revealing the source of that power, and by ignoring the Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011, which vests such power in the Mamlatdar, it cannot be said that there has been a proper or fair consideration of the appeals of the petitioners by the Collector. The Collector has merely skirted the core issue and has rejected the appeals, just for the sake of upholding the orders of the Deputy Collector. In the view of this Court, such a course of conduct is neither fair, justified or even legally tenable, especially when it is contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011. 16. The Collector has merely skirted the core issue and has rejected the appeals, just for the sake of upholding the orders of the Deputy Collector. In the view of this Court, such a course of conduct is neither fair, justified or even legally tenable, especially when it is contrary to the provisions of the Government Resolution dated 04.11.2011. 16. The State Government has tried to explain the orders of the Collector in the affidavit-in-reply filed by it, by referring to certain Government Resolutions and their provisions. None of those Government Resolutions are mentioned in the impugned orders of the Court. 17. In Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as below: "8.The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. In Gordhandas Bhanji ( AIR 1952 SC 16 ) (at p. 18): "Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself". Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older." 18. The principles of law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above-quoted judgment are squarely applicable to the present cases. The respondents have tried to supplement the reasons and give specific details and references to certain GRs in the affidavit-in-reply filed by them, which are blatantly missing in the impugned orders. Such a course of conduct is not permissible in law, therefore, the lack of specific details and reasons in the impugned orders cannot be improved upon by reading into them, the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-reply. 19. Such a course of conduct is not permissible in law, therefore, the lack of specific details and reasons in the impugned orders cannot be improved upon by reading into them, the reasons stated in the affidavit-in-reply. 19. The only conclusion that can be arrived at, as a result of the above discussion, is that the impugned orders directing the termination of the services of the petitioners, passed by the Deputy Collector, are without jurisdiction as the power of removal is not vested in the author of the said orders but is specifically vested in the Mamlatdar, by GR dated 4- 11-2011. The said orders are, therefore, null and void ab initio, and deserve to be quashed and set aside. The impugned orders passed by the Collector, in appeals, are also bad in law as the Collector has failed to refer to the specific provisions of any GR in support of the conclusion arrived at, which are contrary to the GR dated 4-11-2011. Therefore, the said orders cannot be permitted to stand. 20. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A.Masilamani (Supra), in support of his submission that in the event that the court accepts the prayers made in the petitions, petitioners ought not to be reinstated in service. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow: "16. It is a settled legal proposition, that once the Court sets aside an order of punishment, on the ground that the enquiry was not properly conducted, the Court cannot reinstate the employee. It must remit the case concerned to the disciplinary authority, for it to conduct the enquiry from the point that it stood vitiated, and conclude the same. (Vide: Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad etc. v. B. Karunakar etc. AIR 1994 SC 1074 .; Hiran Mayee Bhattacharyya v. Secretary, S.M. School for Girls & Ors., (2002) 10 SCC 293 ; U.P. State Spinning C. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey & Anr., (2005) 8 SCC 264 .; and Union of India v. Y.S. Sandhu, Ex-Inspector AIR 2009 SC 161 ). 17. The second question involved herein, is also no longer res integra. Whether or not the disciplinary authority should be given an opportunity, to complete the enquiry afresh from the point that it stood vitiated, depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. 17. The second question involved herein, is also no longer res integra. Whether or not the disciplinary authority should be given an opportunity, to complete the enquiry afresh from the point that it stood vitiated, depends upon the gravity of delinquency involved. Thus, the court must examine, the magnitude of misconduct alleged against the delinquent employee. It is in view of this, that courts/tribunals, are not competent to quash the charge-sheet and related disciplinary proceedings, before the same are concluded, on the aforementioned grounds." 21. It has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply, that the tenure for which the petitioners had been appointed is over and the petitions have become infructuous. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents resort to the practice of giving appointments for a period of six months only, which tenure is later extended, over a period of time. As a consequence of which, the petitioners have worked for years together. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the appointment of other persons in their places is subject to the final decision of the petitions, therefore, the petitioners may be reinstated in service. 22. The petitions have been preferred challenging the orders of the Deputy Collector, on the ground that the said authority is not vested with the power of removal. This is the only ground urged before this Court. There is also the issue regarding the alleged irregularities attributed to the petitioners, as a result of which Show Cause Notices were issued to them and the impugned orders of removal were passed. This Court has not gone into this issue on merits. However, just because the court finds that the impugned orders of removal are bad in law, the respondents cannot be prevented from taking action, in accordance with law. In the present case, the petitioners were removed due to certain alleged irregularities committed by them in the course of their duties as Administrator-cum-Cook under the Mid Day Meal Scheme. The persons appointed in their places have nothing to do with this aspect. This Court cannot, therefore, direct that the persons appointed in their place be removed for no fault of theirs, until they complete their respective tenures. 23. This Court has found that the orders of removal passed by the Deputy Collector are legally unsustainable, on the ground of jurisdiction. This Court cannot, therefore, direct that the persons appointed in their place be removed for no fault of theirs, until they complete their respective tenures. 23. This Court has found that the orders of removal passed by the Deputy Collector are legally unsustainable, on the ground of jurisdiction. Therefore, the entire procedure, from the point of the issuance of the Show-Cause Notices would have to be started afresh. It cannot be lost sight of that the petitioners have worked for several years, some of them even for twenty five years. 24. In Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India v. A.Masilamani (supra), the departmental inquiry was not challenged on the ground of jurisdiction. In the present case, this is the only ground on which the impugned orders have been assailed. 25. The equities have to be properly balanced, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present cases. 26. For the aforestated reasons, the following order is passed: The impugned orders of the Deputy Collector removing the petitioners from service as Administrator-cum- Cook in the Mid Day Meal Scheme as well as the orders passed by the Collector in Appeals, are quashed and set aside, in each petition. The petitioners shall be reinstated in service after the tenure of the persons appointed in their places comes to an end, considering that the orders of termination passed against them are null and void ab initio, and non est in law. Thereafter, the respondents are at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioners, in accordance with law, from the stage of the issuance of the Show Cause Notices. Needless to say, the petitioners shall be granted a fair and adequate opportunity of hearing. The respondents shall pay to each of the petitioners, the amount of emoluments they would have earned from the date of their removal upto the end of their respective tenures, considering that the orders of removal are without jurisdiction. The payment of the above amounts shall be made within fifteen days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment. 27. The petitions are allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute, in each petition, accordingly. Order accordingly.