( 1 ) D. L. PANDYA, petitioner, has filed this petition with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 1 State of Gujarat through the Secretary, home Department (Transport) and respondent No. 2, Special Officer of inquiries, Gandhinagar to quash and set aside the chargesheet or in the alternative, grant permission to appoint Shri R. B. Dave, a retired Motor Vehicle Prosecutor and at present a practising advocate to defend the petitioner in the inquiry. The present petition was filed on 1. 7. 2004. This Court (Coram: Ms. R. M. Doshit, J) on 23. 7. 2004 issued notice returnable on 3. 9. 2004. I have heard Mr. R. B. Dave, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Gori, learned AGP, on behalf of the Government. Looking to the issue involved in the matter, rule is issued. Mr. Gori, learned AGP, waives service of rule on behalf of the Government. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under;2. 1 The petitioner who was serving in Motor Vehicle Department had additional charge of RTO, Ahmedabad and he was attending the RTO, Ahmedabad office for four days and RTO, Vadodara office for two days during a week. The petitioner retired on 31. 3. 2004 as RTO, Vadodara and after six hours in the midnight at about 12. 05 a charge sheet was served on the petitioner. 2. 2 The charge against the petitioner is in relation to the registration of five vehicles, the inspection of which was done by a Motor Vehicle Inspector, Shri J. M. Panchal, during the period when the petitioner was attending his duties at RTO, ahmedabad. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles shri Panchal, submitted in his Inspection report in Form No. 20, while the petitioner attended his duties in RTO, Vadodara. The petitioner normally required to reinspect the vehicles, could not do so. because of the additional duty at RTO, Ahmedabad. The petitioner has verified the Inspection Report together with the required documents for registration and found it in order and passed an order of registration and tax of the vehicles. 2. 3 From the record it appears that it was brought to the notice of respondent no. 1 that the said vehicles inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector bearing registration No. GJ 6 X (1) 9061 (2) 9062 (3) 9067 (4) 9068 and (5) 9070 were used as sleeper Coaches and not as Omni Buses with sitting arrangements and therefore have issued a memo to the Motor Vehicle inspector for verification and report. A copy of the said memo was sent to the Transport commisiioner, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad. The Inspector of Motor Vehicles, Shri panchal was suspended by the Transport commissioner, Ahmedabad and a departmental inquiry is being conducted against him for not carrying out proper inspection of the said vehicles. 2. 4 In view of this, a charge sheet dated 31. 3. 2003 was issued to the petitioner regarding dereliction of duties regarding the vehicles in question, which have been referred to earlier. He has not inspected the chassis of the bus, headroom and wheel base and/or not examined sitting arrangement line diagram. It was also stated that though the insurance policy of the vehicles was not there, he has registered the vehicles. He was therefore, charged with dereliction of duties under the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 particularly Rule 3 (1) (2) of the said Rules. It was also stated that therefore, in view of the Gujarat Civil services ( Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 particularly Rule 6, why major penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner. It was also stated that even though the petitioner retired from service on 31. 3. 2003 as per Rule 24 of Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 the departmental inquiry will still continue. The authority has set out the irregularities committed by the petitioner. Along with the charge-sheet, the charges continued from pages 1 to 153. 2. 5 The petiti