1. These petitions were initially filed with the prayer to quash and set aside the show-cause notice dated 45.3.09 and charge sheet dated 23.2.2012.

2. In both the petitions, the Court, after hearing the learned advocates for the parties, passed order dated 13th April, 2012 issuing rule and making it returnable on 20th August, 2012 and passed below mentioned further order:

“B. In the meanwhile, if the competent authority takes any decision in light of and on the basis of the report–recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, then at the time of consideration, the case of the petitioners may not be kept out of consideration only on the ground that the proceedings are pending against the petitioners.

C. If before expiry of period of 3 months (during which the departmental proceedings are required to be completed) the competent authority declare and grant promotions, then two posts may be kept vacant until the expiry of the period granted for completion of inquiry/until the departmental proceedings against the petitioners expires and decision with reference to the petitioners, until then may be kept in sealed cover which will be subject to result of the departmental inquiry and the decision of the disciplinary authority on the basis of the departmental proceedings against the petitioners.

D. On completion of the period permitted for concluding the department inquiry it would be open to the petitioners to make appropriate application for further necessary and appropriate directions.”

2.1. Pending the petitions, respondent No.1 passed order dated 10.7.2013 imposing punishment of withholding of one increment of the petitioner for a period of one year without future effect.

2.2. Since the grounds for challenge to the show cause notice and the charge sheet remain same in challenging order of punishment, petitioners were permitted to challenge the order of punishment vide order dated 26.7.2013 passed in Civil Application No. 7669 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 2874 of 2012 and in Civil Application NO. 7670 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 2875 of 2012.

3. After the petitioners were permitted to amend the petitions and to challenge the order of punishment, the petitioners came out with Civil Application No. 8445/13 in Special Civil Application NO. 2874 of 2012 and Civil Application NO. 8447 of 2013 in Special Civil Application No. 2875 of 2012 praying to stay further execution, operation and implementation of the order of punishment passed by respondent NO.1 dated 10.7.2013.

4. When the above said civil applications were taken up for hearing, since the court found that the court will be required to go into the merits of the case, the court asked learned advocates for the parties as to whether the main petitions could be taken up for final hearing or not. Learned advocates for the parties then stated before the Court that instead of hearing the civil applications, main matters could be taken up for final hearing. Therefore, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, the Court took up the main matters for final disposal.

5. Both the petitions involves common facts and issues. Case of the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 2874 of 2012 is that he is working on the post of District Registrar (Liquidator-2) Ahmedabad and he is due for promotion to the next higher post and selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee. It is averred that the petitioner was issued show cause notice dated 4.3.2009 to which the petitioner replied on 31.1.2010 and the petitioner was then served with the charge sheet dated 23.2.2012 for initiating departmental inquiry for alleged irregularity of the year 20022003. The main ground urged in the petition is that the inquiry is initiated at very belated stage and in colourable exercise of powers and the charge levelled against the petitioner could not be said to be misconduct of the petitioner and such charge has been levelled just to deprive the petitioner of