JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr.G. M. Joshi appearing with learned Advocate Mr.Jay Thakkar on behalf of the petitioner and learned AGP Mr.Utkarsh Sharma on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3.

2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of Rule. With the consent of the parties, the present petition is taken up for final decision.

3. A very short but interesting and important question arises for consideration of this Court in this petition. The question being "in a departmental proceeding, when the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer, would the charge-sheeted officer be entitled to a copy of such disagreement, in spite of the Rules governing the inquiry not specifically requiring the same."

4. Facts leading to filing of the present petition in brief are as under:-

4.1. That the petitioner was appointed as a Gujarat Administrative Service, Class-I Officer in the cadre of Deputy Collector in the year 1993 after the petitioner cleared the selection process for the same held by the Gujarat Public Service Commission ("GPSC" for short). For certain alleged acts of misconduct committed by the petitioner between 2002 and 2006, a charge-sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 29.11.2012. An Inquiry Officer had been appointed for inquiring into the charges levelled against the petitioner, and whereas the Inquiry Officer vide his report dated 20.5.2015 had exonerated the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The respondent Department vide a communication dated 4.12.2018 had informed the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority is not in agreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and along with the said communication, tentative reasons for disagreeing with the inquiry report was submitted to the petitioner with the inquiry report itself, calling upon the petitioner to make his submissions on the tentative reasons of disagreement. The petitioner had vide his reply dated 28.1.2019 inter alia submitted his explanation as to why the Disciplinary Authority ought not to have disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and whereas it was requested that communication dated 4.12.2018 i.e. notice of tentative disagreement might be withdrawn. It appears that after the petitioner had submitted his reply to the notice of tentative disagreement, straightaway a second show-cause notice dated 19.8.2021 came to be issued to the petitioner, informing the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority proposes to impose a punishment of removal from service upon the petitioner and whereas the GPSC had also been consulted on the said aspect and the same had been assented to by GPSC. A copy of the report of GPSC dated 12.8.2021 was also forwarded with the second show-cause notice and whereas the petitioner was called upon to make his submissions, if he so desires, within a period of 15 days. It appears that the petitioner, who had undergone some operation and was on sick leave, had requested for further time to be granted to reply to the second show-cause notice. Such communication of the petitioner dated 4.9.2021 had been replied to by the Disciplinary Authority on 15.10.2021 and whereas the petitioner was given seven days' time to submit his reply. It is at this stage that the petitioner has approached this Court.

5. Heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. G. M. Joshi appearing with learned Advocate Mr. Jay Thakkar for the petitioner, who had initially assailed the entire departmental proceeding itself and whereas later on, the scope of the present petition was sought to be restricted to the aspect of the petitioner as the charge-sheeted officer not being provided with a copy of the findings by the Disciplinary Authority disagreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr.Joshi would submit that after the petitioner had been issued a notice dated 4.12.2018, calling upon the petitioner to submit his views on the tentative reasons on the basis of whi