JUDGMENT :

1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought a direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 02.01.2013 passed by the respondent No.4 as well as the inquiry report dated 18.01.2011. By the impugned order dated 02.01.2013, the petitioner has been imposed penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect. It is not disputed that the aforesaid penalty falls within the “major penalty” as specified in the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1967.

2.1 Learned advocate Mr.Nishit P. Gandhi appearing for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay in initiation and completion of the departmental proceedings, since despite the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 19.02.2002 passed in Special Civil Application No.10934 of 2001 directing the respondent to complete the departmental proceedings preferably within a period of six months, the inquiry was prolonged for almost 10 years. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2019 (2) GLR 1079.

2.2 Learned advocate Mr.Gandhi, has submitted that after the aforesaid order of this Court dated 19.02.2002, in fact the inquiry officer was appointed on 17.12.2004 and thereafter first notice for hearing was issued on 17.04.2008, after a period six years from the date of order. Thereafter, the inquiry report was submitted on 18.01.2011. A show cause notice was issued on the petitioner on 29.10.2012. The petitioner immediately replied vide reply dated 23.11.2012 and the impugned order has been passed on 02.01.2013. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside.

2.3 Another aspect, which the learned advocate Mr.Gandhi has invited the attention of this Court, is with regard to not dealing with the reply dated 23.11.2012, which was filed by the petitioner pursuant to the aforeasid show cause notice dated 29.10.2012. He has submitted that though the impugned order refers to the reply dated 23.11.2012, the contents therein are absolutely not dealt with. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 22.11.2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No.1006 of 2006, more particularly he has relied on the paragraph Nos.3 and 4 thereof. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may be quashed and set aside.

3. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Panchayat has submitted that in fact the entire inquiry has been held in accordance with law, after giving ample opportunity to the petitioner and hence, the impugned order may not be set aside. He has submitted that the petitioner was always informed about the next date of hearing by the inquiry officer and when it was found that the petitioner was responsible for the misconduct, as alleged in the charge-sheet, the impugned order imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with future effect was passed. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order may not be set aside.

4. Having heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the facts as noted hereinabove, there are two issues which arise for consideration before this Court, one is with regard to the delay in initiating and completion of the departmental proceedings and the second is with regard to the non-consideration of the reply filed by the petitioner to the final show cause notice dated 29.10.2012 issued to the petitioner. With regard to the aspect of delay, the Coordinate Bench in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel (supra), after surveying various decisions of this Court, has held thus:-

“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,