JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr.Rajesh Mankad learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr.Dipak Dave learned advocate for the respondent.

2. The prayer in the petition by the petitioner is to declare that the order passed by the respondent- company rejecting his Second Appeal on the ground that the statutory rule for preferring such an appeal was effective from 16.09.2016, is bad.

3. Based on this prayer, what is also prayed is that the petitioner is entitled to have his period of suspension from 18.01.2003 to 23.10.2003 counted as regular for all purposes and the action of the respondents in treating such period as such, is bad.

4. Facts in brief would indicate that the petitioner was working as a driver with the respondents. He was issued a charge-sheet on 18.01.2003 and also by the same order suspended from service. On a response filed by the petitioner to the charge-sheet on 17.02.2003, the respondents conducted a departmental proceedings and an inquiry report was submitted on 29.05.2003 holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. A show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 25.08.2004 asking the petitioner to show cause as to why a penalty of stoppage of three increments with futur