The petitioner served as Additional Assistant Engineer under the Narmada Water Resource Department of the State Government, who retired on superannuation with effect from 31st December, 2012.

The petitioner was granted first higher pay-scale from 07th August, 1987 by order dated 08th November, 1993. He became eligible for second higher pay-scale with effect from 07th August, 2002. Petitioner’s case for second higher pay-scale was recommended but ultimately the same was denied on the ground that a major penalty was imposed on the petitioner pursuant to a departmental inquiry.

2. In the context of above basic premise, the petitioner has prayed to grant the second higher payscale and has further prayed to set aside the punishment order dated 15th May, 2013, as a consequence of which the second higher pay-scale came to be denied.

3. It appears that though the Superintending Engineer had recommended for grant of second higher pay-scale to the petitioner, the request was not acceded to by citing Finance Department Resolution dated 31st March, 2005 which provided that if an employee is imposed with a major penalty, no higher pay-scale could be granted. It was by letter dated 07th August, 2014 that the aforesaid denial was communicated. By letter dated 25th February, 2015 petitioner requested the respondent to reconsider his penalty and grant him the higher pay-scale. The request in this letter was again rejected by the respondent as per communication dated 15th July, 2015. The petitioner has prayed to set aside aforesaid communications dated 07th August, 2014 and 15th July, 2015 reflecting the impugned decision.

3.1 It appears that departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the allegation in respect of making wrongful payments by accepting bills which contained erroneous measurement in the various construction works, which were supervised by the petitioner. It was also the allegation that basic data were not provided in the measurement book, yet the payments were made. In the said departmental inquiry undertaken under the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rules, 1971, the inquiry officer upon consideration of material before him, found the petitioner to be not guilty and exonerated the petitioner from the charges. The disciplinary authority however disagreed with the inquiry officer’s report under Rule 10(2) of the Rules. The petitioner was ultimately imposed punishment of cut to the extent of Rs.300/- per month for a period of six month from his pension amount under the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, by order dated 15th May, 2013.

4. In the petition as originally filed, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the denial of grant of second higher pay-scale contending inter alia that cut in pension could not have been treated as major penalty to deny the second higher pay-scale. Order dated 15th May, 2013 imposing penalty of cut in pension was not challenged, which however came to be challenged by amending the petition. Learned advocate for the petitioner harped on the said challenge against the penalty order to submit that since the penalty itself was liable to be set aside on the ground of delay in the inquiry, benefit of second higher pay-scale would automatically ensue thereafter.

4.1 The respondents filed affidavit-in-reply and contested the petition.

4.2 Heard learned advocate Mr. Gautam Joshi for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Vishrut Jani for the respondent-State and its authorities.

5. Noticing the details of the departmental inquiry proceedings against the petitioner so as to appreciate the sole ground of delay raised by the petitioner to assail the inquiry and the punishment order, which are undisputed facts, charges were levelled against the petitioner in respect of alleged misconduct said to have occurred in year 1989-90. Inquiry was initiated in the year 2001 after a yawning gap of 10 years. The inquiry report came