JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr. Meet M. Thakkar, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents.

2. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the petition was taken up for its final disposal.

3. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the punishment order dated 17.4.2020. He has also prayed for quashing and setting aside the appellate orders dated 3.7.2020 and 16.1.2021.

4. The facts in brief are as under:

4.1. The petitioner joined service as a Police Constable on 17.8.1994. He was promoted as Health Constable in the year 2010 and, thereafter, promoted to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on 10.4.2017.

4.2. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 8.6.2019. The charge-sheet inter-alia stated that the petitioner over a period of time, used his mobile phone as well as one mobile number of Jashiben Shantibhai to make calls to listed bootleggers of Amreli District. The charge further was that the use of such sim-cards was illegal and the petitioner did this to hide his identity and in order to have monetary benefits.

5. The petitioner filed a reply on 4.2.2019. A departmental inquiry was conducted and after the evidence adduced during the course of such inquiry, an inquiry officer submitted his inquiry report dated 30.10.2019 holding the charge to be proved. Based on the inquiry officer's report, a show cause notice dated 4.12.2019 was issued to the petitioner asking the petitioner to show cause as to why the punishment of dismissal from service be not passed. The petitioner filed a detailed reply dated 29.12.2019. By the order dated 17.4.2020, a penalty was imposed by which the petitioner was placed in the minimum pay scale of police constable for two years with future effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 27.5.2020 which appeal came to be dismissed by the Inspector General of Police, Surat Range. A revision was preferred and by an order dated 16.1.2021, the Director General of Police rejected the revision. These orders are under challenge.

6. Mr. Vaibhav A. Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner reading the charge-sheet would submit that the charges are ambiguous and did not contend specific details. This amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.

6.1. He would further submit that except the allegation that the petitioner had from his mobile phone and that one of Jashiben talked to the listed bootleggers of Amreli, no specific allegation as to what benefit the petitioner gained was imputed.

6.2. Mr. Vyas would further submit that there was no evidence worth the name to even remotely suggest that the petitioner obtained any monetary benefit or pecuniary benefit from any of the bootleggers.

6.3. Mr. Vyas would take the Court through the statements recorded of Jashiben Shantibhai Chauhan, Rameshbhai Shambhubhai Solanki and Vishal Chandrakantbhai Ruparel, documents which were given with the charge-sheet and submit that except the allegation that the mobile phone of Jashiben was used which was given to her by her son-in-law; Rameshbhai Shambhubhai Solanki, no other misconduct was alleged.

6.4. Mr. Vyas would take the Court through the report of the Inquiry officer and the findings thereof and submit that during the cross examination of Jashiben, it had come on record that Jashiben had denied that the petitioner had used her sim-card for calling up bootleggers. That, she had never seen the petitioner before the incident in question. Reading Rameshbhai's examination, Mr. Vyas would submit that Rameshbhai had admitted that the petitioner would be engaged in conducting raids to discourage gambling and arresting the prohibition offenders and that is how he would know the petitioner.

6.5. Taking the Court through the findings of the Inquiry officer, Mr. Vyas would submit that it was a case of no evidence. The inquiry officer had