JUDGMENT :

A.S. Supehia, J.

1. In the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.05.1984 dismissing him from service and the order dated 11.09.2004 passed in appeal confirming the order of dismissal.

2. During the pendency of this petition, since the petitioner has passed away, the writ petition is pursued by his legal heirs.

FACTS:

3. The petitioner was appointed as a Police Sub-Inspector in the year 1963 and was promoted as a Police Inspector in March, 1980 and after holding departmental proceedings, he has been dismissed from service by order dated 09.05.1984. A charge-sheet dated 04.07.1981 was served upon the petitioner for holding a departmental inquiry for the misconduct inter alia alleging that:-

(A) The petitioner obstructed the investigation of the FIR being C.R. No. I-109 of 1980 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "the IPC").

(B) He demanded bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from the first informant and his brother-in-law and they were kept in the police custody and tortured and ultimately, the demand was settled for Rs. 6,000/-.

(C) With respect to tempering with the record of the Guest House at Chhota Udepur and allegedly trying to create false evidence of his presence at Chhota Udepur, on June 23, 1980 to June 24, 1980 by interpolation of figures "3" into "4".

(D) Created false evidence to show that the petitioner visited the place of incident on June 24, 1980, though the petitioner remained absent at Chhota Udepur.

(E) Tampering with the record inasmuch as he signed the statement of the witnesses recorded on 23.06.1980 though he was not present.

4. A regular departmental inquiry was held by examining 22 witnesses, and after holding the departmental proceedings, the inquiry officer held the charge relating to demand of bribe of Rs. 6,000/- as not proved, however rest of the charges were held as proved.

5. It appears that, thereafter the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of charge no. 2 and accordingly, issued a show cause notice dated 08.02.1984 to the petitioner for the reasons of disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry officer with regard to charge no. 2. The petitioner replied to such show cause notice on 01.04.1984 and after considering his reply as well as the findings of the Inquiry officer, vide impugned order dated 09.05.1984, the disciplinary authority dismissed the petitioner from service.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal against the dismissal order, which was rejected by the order dated 11.09.2004.

SUBMISSIONS:

7. Learned advocate Ms. Dhara Shah appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside since the entire inquiry proceedings were biased, in view of involvement of one Mr. I.A. Erulkar, Deputy Superintendent of Police the documents as demanded by the petitioner were not supplied and in the case of co-delinquent, this Court had set aside the punishment order. She has also referred to the findings of the Inquiry officer and has submitted that the findings are perverse as the relevant documents were not supplied to the petitioner. No further submissions are advanced.

8. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned AGP Mr. Hardik Mehta, while placing reliance on the affidavit, has submitted that the impugned order does not require interference since it is not alleged by the petitioner that any of the statutory rules governing the disciplinary proceedings are violated. He has submitted that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove his case, and, the Inquiry officer, after examining 22 witnesses had held that the charges 1, 3, 4 and 5 as proved. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of charge no. 2 and after giving the show cause notice to the petitioner, the said charge was also proved. It is submitted that assuming that charge no. 2 is not proved, the rest of the charges are serious en