ORDER : 1. This appeal, preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat and others, challenging the oral order dated 14.02.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in captioned writ petition, by which, learned Single Judge has quashed and set aside the order dated 04.03.2021 passed by respondent No. 2-Collector, Surat, by which, the original petitioner, who was working as Revenue Talati was terminated from service on the ground of registration of FIR being lodged under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act. 2. The facts as emerges from the record are briefly summarized as under: 2.1 That original respondent No. 1 had published advertisement for the post of “Revenue Talati (Class-III)” on 16.12.2015 on the terms and conditions mentioned in the said advertisement. 2.2 The original petitioner had applied for the same and by letter dated 09.09.2016, the petitioner was informed about her selection and was asked to join services within a period of 10 days along with original certificate. On 26.09.2016, appointment order was issued by the respondent authorities whereby the petitioner has been given appointment on the post of “Revenue Talati (Class-III)” on fixed pay for period of five years. 2.3 As per the appointment order, the petitioner joined her duties at the Office of Mamlatdar, Surat. Subsequently, by order dated 25.11.2019, the petitioner was transferred to other place. 2.4 On 18.03.2020, the petitioner was once again transferred during her service as ‘Talati cum Mantri’ an FIR being C.R. No. 11194022200015 of 2020 came to be registered with Surat City A.C.B. Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against one Kantibhai Govindbhai Patel. In the aforesaid FIR, the complainant had alleged that accused have demanded illegal gratification from the complainant. The original petitioner came to be arrested by the police authorities in relation to the aforesaid FIR. Subsequently, pursuant to the order dated 01.12.2020 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Surat in Criminal Misc. Application No. 5776 of 2020, the original petitioner was enlarged on regular bail. 2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent -State Authorities without issuing any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing, issued order of termination dated 04.03.2021. Application No. 5776 of 2020, the original petitioner was enlarged on regular bail. 2.5 It is the case of the petitioner that respondent -State Authorities without issuing any show cause notice or without giving any opportunity of hearing, issued order of termination dated 04.03.2021. This illegal action of the respondent State Authorities of terminating the petitioner, compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing captioned writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The original writ petitioner had mainly prayed for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order of termination dated 04.03.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2-Collector, Surat mainly on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7166 of 2019. Though, notice was served upon the respondent-State Authorities, no affidavit-in-reply has been filed on behalf of the State before the learned Single Judge. 4. Learned Single Judge after considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and after taking into the consideration the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 7166 of 2019, having noticed that the order of termination was passed without due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as considering the fact that the services of the petitioner’s were put to an end approximately six months before the tenure was to end, which was 26.09.2021, quashed and set aside the impugned order of termination. Learned Single Judge directed the respondent-State Authorities to take back the petitioner in service for remaining period on her original post with continuity of service for the interregnum period without back wages as if the order of termination was not passed. Learned Single Judge further granted liberty to the respondent State Authorities by observing that the impugned order shall not preclude them from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law. It is this order of learned Single Judge, which has aggrieved the respondent-State Authorities to approach in appeal by filing present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Gidiya for the respondent-original writ petitioner. 6. Mr. It is this order of learned Single Judge, which has aggrieved the respondent-State Authorities to approach in appeal by filing present Letters Patent Appeal. 5. We have heard Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants and learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Gidiya for the respondent-original writ petitioner. 6. Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants, has submitted that from bare reading of the contents of the appointment order of the petitioner, it clearly transpires that petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for fixed period of five years and as per the conditions incorporated, more particularly, Condition Nos. 10 and 14 of the appointment order, gives liberty to the employer to terminate the services of the petitioner if there was a misconduct under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. By making the aforesaid submissions, Mr. Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the appellants has prayed to allow this appeal. 7. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Rajesh Gidiya for the respondent-original writ petitioner has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has submitted that no error of law or fact is committed by the learned Single Judge, which calls for any interference by this Court in the present appeal. He has relied upon the decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 271 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 6062 of 2019 and Letters Patent Appeal No. 1137 of 2022 in Special Civil Application No. 2765 of 2021 and submitted that the issue is no more res integra. By making the aforesaid submissions, he, therefore, prayed to not to entertain this appeal. 8. We have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record of the captioned writ petition as well as the orders relied upon by the learned advocate appearing for the respondent-original writ petitioner. The only issue, which arises for our consideration, falls in a very narrow compass. Inasmuch as the impugned communication dated 04.03.2021, whereby the services of the writ applicant was terminated on the ground of registration of aforesaid FIR during the interregnum of his fixed service tenure, can be termed as stigmatic/punitive, which if found so could not have been passed without holding full scale departmental inquiry by the respondent-State Authorities. 9. Inasmuch as the impugned communication dated 04.03.2021, whereby the services of the writ applicant was terminated on the ground of registration of aforesaid FIR during the interregnum of his fixed service tenure, can be termed as stigmatic/punitive, which if found so could not have been passed without holding full scale departmental inquiry by the respondent-State Authorities. 9. It is an undisputed fact that the writ applicant was appointed on contractual basis pursuant to the appointment order dated 26.09.2016. The bare reading of the recitals of the aforesaid appointment order would indicate that the petitioner’s appointment was governed by the Government Resolution dated 28.03.2016 on fixed pay of Rs. 7,800/- per month for initial five years plus monthly wages of Rs. 2,200/- total fixed pay of Rs. 10,000/-. Thus, original writ petitioner was appointed on contractual basis for termed period of five years, which would to get over on 26.09.2021, the impugned order of termination of service of the writ petitioner came to be passed on 04.03.2021, which is approximately six months before the aforesaid tenure could have got over. The impugned order of termination dated 04.03.2021 is placed on record at Page Nos. 102 to 104 as Annexure ‘G’ which is issued by the respondent No. 2-Collector, District-Surat. In the aforesaid order of termination, the respondent No. 2 has mainly relied upon the FIR being C.R. No. 11194022200015 of 2020, which came to be registered with Surat City A.C.B. Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 7(a), 12 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act on 14.11.2020. By referring the Condition No. 10 and 14(A) of the original appointment order of the writ applicant, respondent No. 2-Collector has held the writ applicant guilty of misconduct by committing breach of Rule 3(1), 3(2) and 3(3) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971. With this finding, respondent No. 2-Collector, Surat has terminated the services of the writ applicant without issuing any notice. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid order of termination, it clearly transpires that respondent-State Authorities has failed to abide by the principles of nature justice. With this finding, respondent No. 2-Collector, Surat has terminated the services of the writ applicant without issuing any notice. 10. On perusal of the aforesaid order of termination, it clearly transpires that respondent-State Authorities has failed to abide by the principles of nature justice. The position of law is well settled, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Patna, (2015) 15 SCC 151 , has referred to the authorities starting from Shamsher Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831 till its decision in the State Bank of India vs. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607 . 11. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India vs. Palak Modi, (2013) 3 SCC 607 , has observed as under: “26. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive. However, if the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice.” 12. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in case of Sheetal Barnwal vs. State of Jharkhand has delivered the judgment in W.P. (S) No. 488 of 2018 and following observations have been made: “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 (2015) 4 JBCJ (SC) 408 foundation and not the motive. 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 (2015) 4 JBCJ (SC) 408 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 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. 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.” 13. Referring to the decision in the context of motivating foundation, while relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Shahi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2000) 5 SCC 152 , what is considered is that the question needs to be addressed while adjudicating an order of termination and ask as to what is the factor that compelled the employee to take action. If the order founded on misconduct and the allegations thereof and motive being the motivating power of such action, then the order is stigmatic. Even in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Chetan Jayantilal Rajgor in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019, the Division Bench of this Court on 24.07.2020 while affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge extensively reproducing the judgment even in the context of contractual employees, held that a full scale inquiry deserves to be undertaken irrespective of whether the delinquent was a regular employee or a contractual employee. Para 11 of the decision of the Division Bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1596 of 2019 read as under: “11. From the overall material on record and in consideration of aforesaid observations, we see no distinguishable material to take a different view or deviate from the same. Since almost in similar issue, the proposition is to the effect that whenever any charge is levelled and action is found to be stigmatic, a full-scale departmental inquiry deserves to be undertaken irrespective of whether the delinquent was a regular employee or contractual employee on a fixed salary. As a result of this, we are of the considered opinion that since undisputedly by a brief procedure, an action is initiated against the respondents herein while dismissing their services, said action itself is found to be not on the touchstone of aforesaid proposition of law. As a result of this, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge. As a result of this, we are of the considered opinion that since undisputedly by a brief procedure, an action is initiated against the respondents herein while dismissing their services, said action itself is found to be not on the touchstone of aforesaid proposition of law. As a result of this, no error is committed by the learned Single Judge. Having perused these material, we are not satisfied with the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants in both these appeals.” 14. In light of the aforesaid settled legal position, we are of the opinion that no error of law or fact is committed by learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. In other words, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed and set aside the order of termination passed by respondent-State Authorities thereby directing the appellants herein to reinstate the original petitioner to her original post with continuity of services for the interregnum without back wages as if the order of termination was not passed. Learned Single Judge has clarified that the reinstatement of the original petitioner shall be up to original tenure of engagement as per the order of appointment and respondent State Authorities are not precluded from proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. 15. Thus, we are in complete agreement with the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge. Hence, present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 16. In view of dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, no order in Civil Application for stay and the same is disposed of accordingly.