( 1 ) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 14. 9. 1995 at annexure "c" to the petition, passed by the respondent No. 1 reverting him from the post of Superintending Engineer to the post of Executive Engineer.

( 2 ) THE charges were issued on the petitioner in 1991 in respect of the alleged misconduct committed in 1985. As per the charge sheet dated 7th October, 1991, which is at Annexure "b" to the petition, it was alleged that the payments were sanctioned by the petitioner for being made to the contractor, eventhough inferior material was used in constructing a water tank which had collapsed. At the relevant time, the petitioner was working as an Executive Engineer at Baroda. The water tank which was constructed at karjan had collapsed and therefore, Departmental enquiry was instituted against various officer including the petitioner. The enquiry against the petitioner culminated in the order dated 14. 9. 1995 by which the petitioner, who was at the time of that order serving as superintending Engineer in the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, was reverted to the post of Executive Engineer. The order of reversion specified that his reversion would be effective till the date of his retirement i. e. , 31. 10. 1998.

( 3 ) IT is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order of reversion was passed by the State Government without jurisdiction, in view of the provisions of sec. 20 (1) (2) of the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") inasmuch as the petitioner having been transferred to the Board by Notification dated 10. 2. 1988 with effect from 1. 4. 1981, the Board alone was the competent authority to take action, if any, under the said provision. It was further contended that the charge-sheet was issued in October, 1991 in respect of the incident of 1985 and therefore, the gross delay in proceedings against the petitioner amounted to denial of an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was also contended that the petitioner was being victimised because he was a Union leader. It was further argued that the allegations made against the petitioner did not amount to misconduct. The petitioner was required to act on the basis of the certificates and reports issued by his subordinates and since the certificate in respect of the work done were issued in favour of the contractor by the Assistant Engineer, there was no reason for the petitioner to doubt them at the time when payment was sanctioned by him. It was contended that the assistant Engineer who was directly responsible for the supervision and inspection of the work personally for quality control particularly in case of foundation, concrete and masonary works and other hidden items and was duty bound to point out deficiency to the higher officers, had not pointed out any deficiency in the work and therefore, the petitioner as an Executive Engineer could not be held responsible for sanctioning the payment. It was also contended that the Assistant Engineer who was directly responsible for personal supervision and inspection of the work was imposed punishment of with-holding of one increment only. It is submitted that the reversion of the petitioner for all time to come till the date of his retirement, was not warranted and specific mention that the reversion will operate till he retires, smacks of malafides on the part of the authority issuing the impugned order.

( 4 ) RELIANCE was placed on behalf of the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme court in Delhi Development Authority vs. H. C. Khurana, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1488 and Union of India vs. Jankiraman, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010 in support of the contention that no disciplinary proceeding was pending on the date of transfer of the petitioner under the Notification dated 10. 2. 1988, since admittedly the chargesheet was issued only thereafter, on 12. 2. 1988.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for