JUDGMENT : 1. RULE. Mr. Ishan Joshi, learned AGP waives service of rule for the respondent-State. 2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.01.2019, whereby the services of the petitioner was terminated. Pending the petition, the amendment was allowed seeking further prayer to consider the services of the petitioner as uninterrupted and to pay the wages for the period during which the petitioner was treated to have been dismissed. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 17.10.2017 on contractual basis for the fixed period and on fixed pay. The appointment of the petitioner was subject to several conditions, as mentioned in the appointment order itself. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that on account of FIR registered against the petitioner being I.C.R.No.135 of 2018 with Sector-21 Police Station, Gandhinagar under Section 376 and Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(5) of the Prevention of Atrocities (S.C./S.T.) Act, the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the impugned order. In the impugned order, the only reason was aforestated offence and as the petitioner is involved in such offence, he has committed breach of the conditions of service. 5. The genesis of the offence was a love affair between the petitioner and complainant, which was disapproved on the side of complainant’s father and that led to filing of criminal complaint. In response to the criminal complaint, the statement of the petitioner was recorded, wherein he had indicated that he and the girl wishes to marry with each other, but, due to disagreement of the parents of the girl, their marriage could not be performed. 6. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that invoking of Condition No.13 of the Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009 is also unwarranted, as the subsequent GR has been passed superseding previous resolution and replacing Condition No.13 by Condition No.14(a) which provides for following the principles of natural justice, and therefore, the order is required to be set aside. 7. Over and above, the nature of offence registered against the petitioner being completely personal in nature and could not question the performance of the petitioner in so far as his service is concerned. 7. Over and above, the nature of offence registered against the petitioner being completely personal in nature and could not question the performance of the petitioner in so far as his service is concerned. It is also now submitted that pending the petition, the trial is concluded and the petitioner has been acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and not believing the deposition of the prosecutrix. 8. Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Sanjay Bhanubhai Makwana Vs. State of Gujarat, passed in Special Civil Application No.15773 of 2018 dated 07.05.2018, wherein it is stated that in case of an employee, who is purely on contractual basis, fixed pay and for fixed period, the principles of natural justice are required to be followed. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the decision in case of Sanjay Bhanubhai Makwana was subject matter of challenge in Letters Patent Appeal, which also, now dismissed vide order dated 03.09.2020. 9. Learned AGP opposes the grant of petition by submitting that it was the condition of service not to indulge in any serious misconduct and when FIR was registered against the petitioner and that too of a serious nature of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the action of the respondent authorities is justified. 10. Having perused the rival submissions made by learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, the petitioner came to be appointed as Surveyor for the period of five years on the fixed pay of Rs.19,950/- at the office of City Survey Suprintendent-2, Rajkot vide order dated 17.10.2017. 11. At the time of appointment, several conditions were imposed. It appears that written complaint was given to the concerned Police Station on 27.10.2018 alleging of offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner by promising her to marry with her. In connection with this written complaint, statement of the petitioner was recorded on 27.10.2018, wherein it is indicated that the relationship was consensual and the complaint was instituted under the influence of father, as he was not agreeable to the relationship. It is also stated that the petitioner is still ready and willing to enter into matrimonial relationship by under taking necessary formalities. Despite this, FIR came to be registered as I.C.R.No.135 of 2018 on 30.10.2018. It is also stated that the petitioner is still ready and willing to enter into matrimonial relationship by under taking necessary formalities. Despite this, FIR came to be registered as I.C.R.No.135 of 2018 on 30.10.2018. It appears that on account of this development, the impugned order dated 09.01.2019 came to be passed and the petitioner’s service came to be terminated. 12. The Court has taken into consideration the subsequent fact, which is relevant, as now, the petitioner is tried and is acquitted from the charges levelled against him, and thereby, completely changing the circumstances even after the order passed of terminating the service. 13. Submission of learned advocate for the petitioner to the extent that the respondent-authorities have invoked the provisions in the form of condition from the resolution which now stands substituted also needs to be accepted. 14. In the operative part of the order, the reference is made to Government Resolution dated 04.06.2009, wherein the condition of service for the employees under the contract was stipulated. The condition no.13 is read as under:- “(13) Due to non-existence of the post or on account of serious misconduct established prima-facie or due to their ineligibility / incompetence to discharge the duty to the concerned post (Which is determined on the basis of annual appraisal report), services of the candidate appointed on fixed pay on contract basis can be terminated giving one month's notice or without giving notice by paying one month's fix pay. The candidate appointed on fixed pay on contract basis can relieve during contractual period after one month's notice or after acceptance of resignation. However, if any pre-service training bond is executed, the amount of the same shall also have to be paid by the candidate appointed on fixed pay on contract basis.” 15. The said resolution was relooked under the Resolution dated 28.03.2016. The resolution dated 28.03.2016 by the Finance Department pertaining to the employees under the contract on fixed pay in Class-IV category and also referred to in the impugned order dated 09.01.2019, wherein some conditions of the services canceled which includes the Condition No.13 mentioned herein above to be substituted by Condition No.14(A) where the element of principles of natural justice was introduced. The Condition No.14(A) is read as under:- “(14) (A) Due to non-existence of the post or on account of misconduct established after the inquiry held by the competent authority following principles of natural justice or due to their ineligibility/incompetence to discharge the duty of the post of ..............., Class-3 (Which is determined on the basis of annual appraisal report), his services can be terminated giving one month's notice or without giving notice by paying one month's fix pay. If his/her service is put to end without reasonable grounds, concerned employee could make representation before the Secretary of concerned department. This effect shall also be applicable to all fixed pay employees appointed before 01/10/2015. (B) In the event of voluntary relieving of employee of fixed pay on contractual basis, he/she can relieve during contractual period after one month's notice or after acceptance of resignation. However, if any preservice training bond is executed, the amount of the same shall also have to be paid by him/her.” 16. Over and above, it would be pertinent to refer to the decision of this Court passed in the case of Sanjay Bhanubhai Makwana, wherein while dealing with the identical issue regarding the following of principles of natural justice and while dealing with the service condition of an employee, who is on contract basis on fixed pay scale and for a limited period, this Court, in Paragraph Nos.6 & 7, has held as under:- “6. When the impugned order is considered in light of the above principles and the position of law, it could be well discerned that the event of filing of F.I.R. against the petitioner was treated as base and it was concluded readily by the respondents that the petitioner had committed misconduct for accepting the bribe. Upon this foundation, the termination was effected. It was on the ground of misconduct and therefore the stigmatic order, which could not have been passed without a full scale inquiry. 6.1 An attempt was made in vain by learned advocate for the respondents that there was compliance of natural justice as the notice was issued to the petitioner. A mere notice would not suffice. No inquiry was held, no charge was framed against the petitioner. 6.1 An attempt was made in vain by learned advocate for the respondents that there was compliance of natural justice as the notice was issued to the petitioner. A mere notice would not suffice. No inquiry was held, no charge was framed against the petitioner. Without issuing the charge and without putting the petitioner to knowledge of the allegation which he was to precisely answer, the principles of natural justice could not be said to be followed when the order was founded on misconduct. As held by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment above, it necessitated a full scale inquiry against the petitioner after issuing show-cause notice and by framing appropriate charge, conducting it in accordance with the natural justice. 6.2 The petitioner was a fixed term employee who was appointed as Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-III as per appointment order dated 17th May, 2013 for a period of five years. The impugned order came to be passed on 30th March, 2015. Therefore, the relief which would ensue for the petitioner shall be upto making up good the total period of five years of employment. 7. As a consequence of above discussion and reasons, the impugned order dated 30th March, 2015 passed by respondent No.2 – Commissioner of Transport is hereby set aside. Respondents are further directed to reinstate the petitioner on original post of Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Class-III with continuity of service and with payment of salary/wages for the interregnum as well as the consequential benefits which may arise, as if the order of termination was never passed. The reinstatement of the petitioner directed as above shall be for the period upto making of the total original period fixed for his employment as per order of appointment. The resultant monetary benefits to be paid to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the present order.” 17. In view of the aforesaid, the petition deserves to be allowed. The order dated 13.07.2021 is ordered to be quashed and set aside. Necessary consequence to follow, as the order has been set aside. 18. In view of disposal of main matter, connected Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of, accordingly. Direct service is permitted.