ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for the purpose of seeking following reliefs:-

(A) To quash and set aside the order of removal dt. 20.6.2005, and to reinstate the petitioner in service with consequential benefits including back wages with 12% interest.

(B) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the petitioner may be paid an amount of Rs.2 lakhs.

(C) ………….”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was serving as Civil Surgeon (Class-I) under the respondent till he is removed from service vide order dated 20.6.2005. The petitioner had initially joined the services as Medical Officer on 6.11.1976 and after passage of 28 years, has been superannuated on 29.2.2008. In the meantime, during passage of his services, on 25.3.1992, the petitioner was placed under suspension in respect of the allegation that he was involved in corrupt practice of taking amount of Rs.500/- from a patient towards medical treatment and the petitioner had been prosecuted by a Special Court, which, now as informed by learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas, has resulted in an order of conviction and the said order of conviction is challenged by way of an appeal before this Court and the same is pending for final adjudication.

3. The case of the petitioner is that on 29.10.1999, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet, imputing three charges, viz. (1) during the suspension period, the petitioner was doing private practice, (2) he did not remain present at the head-quarters and (3) even though his resignation was not accepted, he remained absent unauthorizedly. To this charge-sheet, the petitioner replied on 7.12.1999 and vide order dated 3.5.2001, an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed to hold the departmental inquiry and after conducting departmental inquiry, the Inquiry officer has submitted a report and sent the same to the State authority. Even the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer has been agreed by the State authority. As a result of this, vide letter dated 5.4.2004, the petitioner was called upon to make his representation against the said inquiry report, to which the petitioner submitted the detailed representation on 22.4.2004 and after the said representation, vide orer dated 20.6.2005, the petitioner was removed from services and along with the order of removal, a letter dated 4.6.2005 written by the Gujarat Public Service Commission was also sent accepting the recommendation. The petitioner originally filed Special Civil Application No.14145 of 2003 inter alia praying to direct the respondent to pay subsistence allowance. However, the said petition came to be withdrawn and disposed of vide order dated 29.9.2003 and directed the departmental inquiry to be completed latest by 31.12.2003. After narration of certain events which took place during the course of time and ultimately, sought the relief in the petition to quash and set aside the order or removal dated 20.6.2005 and consequently, sought a relief of reinstatement in service with consequential benefits, including the back wages with 12% interest. With the background of the aforementioned facts, the petition was entertained by the Court initially by issuance of notice on 19.9.2005 and later on, the same came to be admitted and has now come up for consideration finally before this Court.

4. Learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas appearing for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the action on the part of the respondent authority is thoroughly uncalled for and is violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as, without payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner is made to face the inquiry which, in view of the settled position of law, violates the principles of natural justice. It has further been contended that the penalty order, which has been impugned in the petition, is a non-speaking order, not supported by cogent reasons and since the reasons are part and parcel of the principles of natural j