N. V. ANJARIA, J.

The petitioner was a Judicial Officer serving as a Joint District Judge in the cadre of District Judge. He was subjected to two departmental inquiries one after another for various charges of misconducts in discharging his duty as Judicial Officer. Ultimately, respondent No.2 disciplinary authority rendered a common decision dated 24th March, 2009 in respect of both the inquiries and imposed penalty of dismissal under Rule 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Rules"). The respondent No.1 thereupon issued Notification dated 4th May, 2009 dismissing the petitioner from service.

1.1. In the present petition filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed to set aside the said Notification dated 4th May, 2009 issued by the respondent No.1, as also the final decision dated 11th November, 2008124th March, 2009 of respondent No.2. It is further prayed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential benefits by regularising the period of suspension and to treat the said period of suspension as on duty.

Factual Matrix :

2. The basic facts as well as relevant dates and events may be outlined. The petitioner joined the services on 6th May, 1993 in the cadre of District Judge at the age of 43 years as direct recruited from the Bar. He was initially appointed as Joint District Judge and served on the said post at Surendranagar, Palanpur, Bhavnagar and Rajkot. After the Report of Shetty Commission, his designation was changed as Additional District Judge.

2.1. While he was serving at Bhavnagar, first Departmental Inquiry No. 12 of 2001 was instituted on 12th December, 2001, in which the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 9th January, 2004. After issuance of chargesheet on 12th December, 2001, the petitioner came to be suspended by order dated 20th March, 2002, while he was serving as Joint District Judge, Rajkot. In that inquiry, three-fold charges were levelled. The first charge was that the petitioner 'did not deliver the judgments for considerable long time after hearing of arguments. The second charge was that the petitioner granted bail in 13 cases of serious offences without considering the settled principles and guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as by this High Court in the matter of granting of bail to accused. Another limb of second charge viewed as a third charge, was that the petitioner in granting bail, unduly favoured two Advocates, named Mrs. Hetaben H. Shah and Mr. M. M. Bhatt.

2.2. The Departmental Inquiry No. 12 of 2001 was conducted by the Inquiry Officer of the cadre of Additional Principal Judge, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad. Seven witnesses, whose names are mentioned in Paragraph 3.4 of the memo of the petition, were examined. Several documents were produced. The petitioner examined himself and other witness one Shri Chudasama. Statement of defence dated 13-3-2002 and another statement of defence dated 20-11-2003 were submitted by the petitioner during the course of the inquiry.

2.3. After the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 9th January, 2004 holding that the charge No. 1 was not proved, but the other charges were proved, respondent No.1 took tentative decision on 29th October, 2004 to impose penalty of dismissal. The same was served upon the petitioner along with a show-cause notice dated 15th April, 2005 and the petitioner received the same on 19th April, 2005.

2.4. At this juncture, pending completion of the first inquiry, second departmental inquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner on 23rd February, 2005 in connection with the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during the same period while he was serving as a Joint District Judge, Bhavnagar. In that inquiry, statement of charges contained as many as 17 imputations.

2.5. The petitioner filed his reply on 26th July, 2009. In the said second Department