( 1 ) MR. NIRAJ Ashar, Learned Advocate appearing for Sr. Advocate Mr. P. M. Thakkar on behalf of the petitioner. Learned AGP Mr. V. M. Pancholi appears for M/s. Patel Advocates on behalf of the respondent no. 1 and 2. The respondent no. 3 is served but none is appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 3.

( 2 ) IN the present petition, according to the petitioner he was initially appointed by the respondents by an order dated 2. 3. 1981 as a Jr. Clerk in the pay scale of Rs. 260 to Rs. 400/- and was posted at Mahesana under the Director of Accounts and Treasury. Thereafter the petitioner was transferred to Unja District Mahesana on request in the month of May, 1981. During the employment, the petitioner had received 2 chargesheets for some alleged irregularities in his duties, wherein the respondent no. 3 ultimately by an order dated 16. 4. 86 imposed penalty by way of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner by withholding one increment for one year with future effect and in respect to the other incident dated 4. 4. 85, the respondent no. 3 has imposed punishment to the petitioner by placing the petitioner in the lowest pay scale of Rs. 260. 00 for a period of 5 years.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, it appears from the record that the petitioner had received a third chargesheet dated 6. 2. 1987 interalia alleging therein that the petitioner had remained absent on 9. 10. 86 and 9. 12. 86 and after alleging in the chargesheet that on 15. 12. 1986, the petitioner had attended the office at 11:40 hours instead of 11:00 hours and also alleged that carelessness in performing regular work of his table and thereby the petitioner had committed misconduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant. In the said chargesheet, the fact of earlier 2 punishments imposed by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner has been mentioned. The said chargesheet is dated 6. 2. 1987 (Annexure A) Page 20 to the petition. In the said chargesheet, it is also mentioned by the authority that if the allegations made in the chargesheet are ultimately found to be proved then earlier 2 punishments imposed on the petitioner were required to be considered at the time of imposing punishment. The petitioner gave reply on 7. 2. 87 (Annexure D) Page 25 and pointed out that the said chargesheet has been issued with a prejudice and with malafide intention and ultimately the intention of the authority is to dismiss the petitioner from service and having being prejudiced, there is no necessity to give any representation or reply to the competent authority. The District Treasury Officer, Mahesana has ordered on 5. 2. 87 that there was some prima facie case against the petitioner for departmental inquiry in respect of wilful absence from duty, disobedience, ill-subordination and misconduct and therefore it was ordered by the District Treasury Officer, Mahesana that departmental inquiry against the petitioner in respect to the above misconduct is required to be initiated. After the reply filed by the petitioner dated 7. 2. 1987, the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. Inspite of receiving the call letters from the competent authority, the petitioner was not remained present in the departmental inquiry and ultimately exparte departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and in absence of the petitioner 4 witnesses were examined in the departmental inquiry and after considering the exparte evidence laid in the departmental inquiry , the Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that misconduct alleged against the petitioner are found to be proved and also considered the earlier 2 punishments imposed by the Competent Authority to the petitioner. Therefore, the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he should not be dismissed from service by show cause notice dated 30. 4. 1987. The Competent Authority had issued show cause notice dated 30. 4. 87 to the petitioner and alongwith the said show cause notice, the r