( 1 ) IN this petition, the main issue that is required to be considered is whether the Disciplinary Authority can rely upon the advice rendered by the Gujarat Public service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "gpsc" for short) without supplying a copy thereof to the delinquent Government servant.

( 2 ) FACTS leading to the present petition are as follows:2. 1 the petitioner was initially appointed as district Inspector, Land Records Class-II as a direct recruit on 16. 8. 79 under the administrative control of the Settlement Commissioner and Director of Land Records, gujarat State. In the year 1990, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent of Land Records (Class I ). While holding the said post, a chargesheet came to be issued against the petitioner on 11. 11. 02. In the said chargesheet, there were three charges levelled against the petitioner. First charge levelled against the petitioner was that on different occasions, the petitioner had committed serious irregularities and had tampered with the record in the results of the candidates in the departmental examinations held in May 1993 and november 1993 when the petitioner was working as assistant Settlement Commissioner. The chargesheet described different instances which had come to the light of the authorities where the candidates were declared passed though they had actually failed. It was also alleged that the petitioner had tampered with the answer-sheets, mark-sheets and the final result sheets of the said examinations. Second charge levelled against the petitioner in the said chargesheet was that the petitioner had given two grace marks to a candidate who had secured 48 marks and was thus declared passed after adding the grace marks which was contrary to the instructions. Third charge against the petitioner was consequential to charge No. 1 and it was alleged that the petitioner had committed gross irregularities in conduct of the examination and had committed acts of doubtful integrity in order to pass 23 candidates unauthorisedly. It was thus alleged that the petitioner had committed grave misconduct and breached the provisions of rules 3 (1) (i) and of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) rules 1971. To correct certain typographical error in the chargesheet dated 11. 11. 02, with the details of which this Court is not concerned, a corrigendum dated 24. 3. 03 came to be issued. 2. 2 upon conclusion of the oral inquiry, the Inquiry officer submitted his report on 30th July 2003. The inquiry Officer concluded that the charge articles 1 and 3 levelled against the petitioner stand proved. The inquiry Officer, however, found that the second charge against the petitioner was not proved. 2. 3 a copy of the Inquiry Officers report was supplied to the petitioner along with communication dated 27. 8. 03. In the said communication dated 27. 8. 03, it was conveyed to the petitioner that the Disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer regarding the conclusion that charges Nos. 1 and 3 are proved and that charge No. 2 against the petitioner is not proved. The petitioner was given time for 15 days to represent against the Inquiry Officers report. 2. 4 the petitioner represented against the Inquiry officers report on 3rd September, 2003. 2. 5 the Disciplinary Authority by its impugned order dated 11. 9. 04 imposed punishment of reverting the petitioner from the post of Superintendent of Land records, Class-I to the feeder cadre post of Office superintendent, Class II for a period of five years. It was further provided that upon completion of the above period of 5 years, the petitioner shall be reposted on his original post in Class-I and his pay will be fixed at the same stage where it was prior to the order of punishment. It was further provided that his seniority in Class-I would be maintained. 2. 6 along with the said order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 11. 9. 04, the petitioner was als