1. Heard learned advocate for the parties.

2. The petitioner, who happened to be the retired Medical officer in the State has approached this Court by way of this petition with following prayers.

“(A) quashing and setting the order dt.27.4.2005 imposing the penalty of monthly pension cut of Rs.300/for 3 years and to direct the respondent to refund all the amount deducted with 10% interest.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition further implementation of the impugned order dt.27.4.2005 may be stayed.

(C) To grant such other and further relief's as may be deemed fit.”

Thus, what is essentially under challenge is the order of penalty of reduction of his pension by Rs.300/every month for three years vide order dated 27th April 2005 as a result of disciplinary proceedings held against him in respect of misconduct alleged.

3. The facts in brief as could be gathered from the memo of the petition are as under :

3.1 That the petitioner was appointed as Medical Officer on 20th December 1971 and he retired from service on superannuation on 31st January 2002 while holding the post of Superintendent, Class-I, General Hospital, Dhoraji, District Rajkot. A chargesheet was issued on 20th August 1993 to the petitioner for holding a departmental inquiry in respect of three charges, which are as under :

(1) The services of 5 employees of Class- IV were utilized at his residence instead of hospital.

(2) There were illegalities committed in regard to the use of vehicles of the hospital.

(3) R.M.O. Had used one vehicle for his personal use on 28th June 1987 and the petitioner had shielded him.

3.2 To hold the departmental inquiry, one officer was appointed, who as per his report found charge no.1 as fully proved and charge no.2 partly proved and charge no.3 as not proved. However, the petitioner lost the inquiry report sent to him and hence he can not produce the same. The State Government agreed with the report in respect of all the charges. However, so far as charge no.2 is concerned, which was held partly proved by the Inquiry Officer, was held to be proved. A show cause notice dated 4th April 1997 was issued to the petitioner calling upon him to make his representation in the matter.

3.3 The petitioner made his representation dated 24th April 1997. The State Government, after considering the representation by order dated 27th April 2005 has imposed the penalty of monthly pension cut of Rs.300/for three years. Thus, the imposition of penalty has given rise to filing of this petition.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the fact that the socalled misconduct and the issuance of chargesheet and the conducting of inquiry do not follow the well established principle of law and the Government Resolution dated 20th April 1993 in respect of conducting the inquiry, which provides various stages for conducting the inquiry and require expeditious completion of the inquiry. The fact of the present case indicate that those provisions have not followed at all and therefore, the resultant order of penalty, reduction in pension deserve to be quashed and set aside.

5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the incident mentioned in the chargesheet, as could be reflected in the memorandum dated 20th August 1993, would indicate that incident of 1987 and thereabout was intended to be incorporated into chargesheet issued in the year 1993. The belated issuance of chargesheet in itself is sufficient to defeat the very purpose of inquiry. The petitioner was issued chargesheet on 20th August 1993 indicating that the delinquent used the services of Class-IV at his residence instead of hospital and thus acted contrary to the provision of law and acted as unbecoming of Government Servant as per Conduct Rules 3 (1) of Disciplinary Rule. Second charge was in respect of pressurizing the driver for making wrong entries in the logbook of the vehicle and use the vehicle for personal work. The charge was replied