JUDGMENT :

1. By way of this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 26.03.2010.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was discharging his functions as District Registrar, Co-operatives Societies (City) Ahmedabad between 29.05.1997 to 02.06.1999. During this passage of time, the Government Servant’s Co-operative Housing Society tendered a proposed amendment to the bye-laws of the Society for approval. The said application was filed on 11.08.1998. Based upon the receipt of the said application, the petitioner issued notice on 27.08.1998 for extending an opportunity of hearing and the date was given of 15.09.1998. According to the petitioner, the said application was merely for the purpose of approval and/or modification of bye-laws of the Society and as such, though notice was issued, no opportunity or bi-prate hearing was to be given in fact.

2.1. According to the petitioner, the office bearers had approached the petitioner to request the matter to be heard on 28.08.1998 instead of 15.09.1998 and with all bona fides, the petitioner acceded to the request, heard the matter, and suggested two changes in the amendment of bye laws which has been sought. The petitioner disapproved those individual unit holders who constructed on one plot to become members and that only one plot holder shall become members of the Society, irrespective of the fact that various units might have been constructed on one plot and to that effect an order was passed on 01.09.1998 and the notice of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat was received by the petitioner only on 02.09.1998 and day after the order being passed by the petitioner, later on the said petition came to be disposed of as withdrawn being Special Civil Application No. 6960 of 1998 on 11.04.2000, but the fact of preponement of hearing was made the subject matter of charge against the petitioner.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent authority charged the petitioner by indicating that the co-operative society did not permit for more than one member occupying one plot, the present petitioner had made 15-20 occupants of one complex as members of the Society and thereby acted in a manner defeating the very object of the co-operative society and further charge levelled against the petitioner is that though as per the notice hearing was fixed on 15.09.1998 and though the petitioner was aware about the proceedings filed before the Hon’ble High Court and the order was passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat on 28.08.1998, the petitioner heard the matter on 28.08.1998 and passed an order on 01.09.1998 in parallel to the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court which again has generated a suspicion about his bona fides. As a result of this, charge sheet came to be filed on 12.02.2001.

2.3. The petitioner further states that the said charges were explained by the petitioner and indicated that there was no mala fide intent of the petitioner in preponement of hearing or to pass the order prior to High Court’s order. The explanation tendered by the petitioner was not accepted and the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed on 20.08.2002. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 29.01.2004 on receipt of brief note by Presenting Officer and thereafter notice was issued upon the petitioner on 25.11.2008 after an unreasonable period when DPC was to meet in the near future, for the first time, show cause notice as stated above was served on 25.11.2008 to which, a reply was given on 03.12.2008 raising important issues and disputed the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was also pointed out that there was no charge of illegal gratification of any nature, but then, the authority assumed against the petitioner and the bona fides about the haste shown by the petitioner and proceeded to pass an order irrespective of the fact that the inquiry office