S.G. Shah, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. G.M. Joshi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Swapneshwar Goutam for the respondent State. The petitioner is seeking reliefs from this Court under Article 14, 16, 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India and prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.11.2007 and thereby to direct the respondent-Government to treat the petitioner as superannuated from his service with effect from 30.11.2007 with further direction to pay him all the retiral dues in accordance with law and consider the period of absence of the petitioner on duty as leave without pay or in any other appropriate manner. The petitioner has also prayed for the directions to the respondents to prepare the pension papers of the petitioner and pay him amount of gratuity and other benefits.

2. However, respondents have resisted such petition by filing affidavit in reply and thereby, they have disclosed facts with reference to some pending departmental inquiry.

3. The petitioner has amended the petition by adding prayer and thereby now, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to quash and set aside the action of the respondent in initiating and conducting the departmental inquiry by charge sheet dated 28.02.2007 and subsequent actions thereto. The petitioner has also prayed for staying further proceedings of departmental inquiry by way of amended prayer.

4. While admitting the petition, vide order dated 29.09.2008, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court granted interim relief with respect to inquiry only. However, perusal of the record shows that practically, the inquiry which was referred by the respondent in their pleading was kept in abeyance by themselves and to that effect they disclosed on oath whereby; Mr. H.N. Chaudhary, holding the office of Under Secretary, Narmada Water Resources Water Supply and Kalpsar Department, at the relevant point of time filed such affidavit in reply on 24th September, 2008, perusal of the same is relevant not only for the purpose of clarifying the status of departmental inquiry but it also reflects the approach of concerned Government officer on oath. The relevant paragraph reads as under:

"So far as the aspect of unauthorized absence is concerned, the same is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. It is made clear herein that the authority has decided not to proceed further with the inquiry, till the petition is decided by this Hon'ble Court and further course would depend upon the outcome of the present petition."

5. Thereby, the respondent employer wishes to continue departmental inquiry against the present petitioner, whom they considered as resigned in the year 2007, by impugned order of the year 2008. Whereas in this petition against the decision of the employer, consideration of his absence as unauthorized absence from service has been challenged. At the same time, it could not be ignored that though as many as 3 departmental inquiries are stated to have been initiated as disclosed in para 6 of their affidavit in reply dated 03.04.2008, there is no disclosure in any manner whatsoever with respect to charges in all such departmental inquiries. However, pursuant to the statement in para 4 of the affidavit in reply, it cannot be presumed and assumed that the charges against the petitioner is regarding unauthorized absence.

6. During the course of submissions by both the sides, it becomes clear that in fact, there is no departmental inquiry based on charges with reference to unauthorized absence and therefore, prima facie, it becomes clear that no departmental inquiry has been held against the petitioner, so far as unauthorized absence is concerned.

7. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner has joined service of the respondent on 11.05.1973 therefore, considering his tenure of services, he has reached the age of superannuation and retirement on 30.11.2007. During such period he has completed 25 years of service. It is also