S. D. PANDIT, J. ( 1 ) ANSHUMALI Bhalchandra Lowalekar has filed the present petition to challenge the Government Resolution No. SLT-1080-895-G-2 dated 23. 9. 1981 and Rule 6 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and to declare them as ultravires and to get a declaration that he is entitled to get promotion to the post of Dy. Conservator of Forests from 30. 3. 1986. ( 2 ) THE petitioner joined as Range Forest Officer on 10. 11. 1966. He was promoted as assistant Conservator of Forests on 13. 12. 1977. While he was working as Range Forest officer, it was his duty to pay wages of the workers who were to work for the forest department. It seems that one Amarsinh Talabhai had made two applications on 20. 2. 1978 and 2. 3. 1978 to the superiors of the present petitioner making grievances against him that an amount of Rs. 600/- payable to the workers was not actually paid. After the receipt of the said applications, explanation of the present petitioner was also sought for and necessary inquiries were made and then it was decided to start a departmental inquiry against the present petitioner. On 21. 9. 1977, a Memorandum of charges and the material documents in support of the allegations against the present petitioner were supplied to him and thereafter departmental inquiry was initiated against the present petitioner on 15. 4. 1982. The inquiry officer had examined various witnesses and had also considered the materials on record and it was found that there was no misappropriation of the said amount of Rs. 6007- but though the petitioner had received the amount on Rs. 29. 1. 1977, the same was not paid to the workers on that day and that it was subsequently paid to the workers and that too after complaints were received by the superiors. He accordingly submitted the report of the inquiry and then the disciplinary authority was pleased to award penalty of with-holding of two increments without future effect. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that said inquiry was held in an arbitrary and unfair manner. He contended that there was no evidence to support the allegations against him and the punishment awarded to him was illegal and improper. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that said inquiry was held in an arbitrary and unfair manner. He contended that there was no evidence to support the allegations against him and the punishment awarded to him was illegal and improper. He has further averred that there was unecessary delay in holding the said inquiry and the said delay has caused prejudice he has lost chances of getting promotion to the post of Dy. Conservator of forest. During the pendency of the said petition, Departmental Promotion Committes met for the purpose, of giving promotion to the post of Dy. Conservator of Forests and the promotion orders were released on 30. 3. 1983 by promoting three Assistant Conservators of Forest who were junior to the petitioner. Then the Departmental Promotion Committee had met in December, 1983 and second time promotional order was issued but he was not given promotion at that time also. Thus according to him, there is double punishment to him on account of denying promotion to him and on account of stoppage of two increments. It is his contention that the explanation 3 to Rule 6 of the Rules is unconstitutional, irrational, and arbitrary and therefore, the same deserves to be struck down, it is also contended by him that the Government Resolution dated 23. 9. 1991 bearing No. SLT-1080-985-G-2 provides unguided and unfettered power and discretion to withhold promotion lor an indefinite period and therefore, the same is unconstitutional and ultra vires. He has therefore, prayed for the following reliefs in his petition. "a. Declaring the Rule 6 of Gujarat Civil, Services (Discipline and Appeal) rules, 1971 as ultra vires the constitution and therefore, null and void; and quashing and setting aside the same;b. declaring that the Government Resolution bearing No. SLT 1080-985-G-2, dated 23rd September, 1981 at Annexure "l, is violative of Art. 14 to the extent that it provides for unguided power and unfettered discretion to withhold promotions for indefinite period and is therefore, unconstitutional and ultra vires;c. and/or quashing and setting aside the order of penalty at Annexure K imposing the penalty of withholding two increments of the petitioner and declaring the same to be arbitrary, unreasonable, discreminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;d. and/or declaring that the petitioner cannot be denied the promotion with effect from 30. 3. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;d. and/or declaring that the petitioner cannot be denied the promotion with effect from 30. 3. 1983 in the facts and circumstances of the case, and directing the respondents to grant the said promotion to him with effect from the said date with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary;e. granting such other and further reliefs and passing such other and further order as the circumstances of the. case may require;f. awarding the costs of this petition. " ( 4 ) THE Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, respondent No. 2 has filed affidavit in reply opposing the claim of the present petitioner. He has staled therein that Government resolution No. SLT 1080-895-G-2 dated 23. 9. 1981 was issued by the Government in consequence of the judgment of this Court in SCA No. 277/80. The provision of the said resolution could not be said to be either unreasonable, irrational and ultra vires. Said resolution as well as provisions of Rule 6 of the Rules could not be said to be violative of principles of natural justice or that they are arbitrary and unreasonable. Therefore, there is no question of quashing both. As regards the departmental inquiry it has been contended that in holding said inquiry there was no breach of any principle of natural justice and the papers of inquiry clearly discloses that the payment of money was made subsequently and that the payment was not made on the date the payment ought to have been made. Consequently the inquiry officer had found that there was no payment by the present petitioner on the due date and consequently held him guilty. It could not be said that finding was recorded with no evidence on record. Therefore, the awarding of punishment to the present petitioner of stopping two increments could not be said to be improper or illegal. It is further contended by him that there was no delay in holding the said inquiry and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 15. 4. 1982 and the final order was passed by the Government on 9. 4. 1984. It is further contended by him that there was no delay in holding the said inquiry and no prejudice was caused to the petitioner, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 15. 4. 1982 and the final order was passed by the Government on 9. 4. 1984. Before starling the departmental inquiry the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to show cause why the inquiry should not be initiated against him and it is not the case of the petitioner that on account of the delay in inquiry he was deprived of any material which he could have produced to his innocence. ( 5 ) IT is further contended on behalf of the respondent that the claim of the petitioner for promotion was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the procedure of sealed cover was followed and as the petitioner was found guilty in the departmental inquiry, he could not be given promotion to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forests I as it is a promotional post and the promotion is on the basis of merit and seniority. Thus it is contended that there is no merits in this petition and that the same should be dismissed. ( 6 ) WE have already quoted the prayer clauses in this petition. From the prayer clauses also it is quite clear that it is not the claim of the petitioner to declare that the departmental inquiry held against him was bad and was against the principles of natural justice and he does not seek the quashing and setting aside of the said departmental inquiry proceedings. Now apart from this technical aspect, if the material on record is seen then it will be quite clear that the departmental inquiry was held by following the principles of natural justice. Then it is not the case of the petitioner in the petition that the departmental inquiry was held in violation of the principles of natural justice. The report of the inquiry officer which is at Annexure-A on record clearly shows that the inquiry officer has considers the oral evidence on record and on consideration of the same, he has recorded a finding. Therefore, it could not be said that those finding were recorded without any evidence on record. It is also not possible to hold that these findings are perverse. Therefore, it could not be said that those finding were recorded without any evidence on record. It is also not possible to hold that these findings are perverse. Therefore, in the circumstances said departmental inquiry proceedings could not be said to be illegal or improper and the same could not be quashed and set aside. The petitioner has written a letter to the Secretary to forest and Environment Department, Gandhinagar dated 20. 8. 1985, copy of which has been produced at Annexure-M by him. Subject of the said letter is titled as "regarding promotion to GPS Clause I. " In the said letter he has stated as under :"i am willing to pay the full amount of my two increments stopped vide your no. DPE/1283-5136-V-1 dated 9. 4. 1984 or am ready to accept this punishment in the senior scale. "the contents of the above said letter clearly indicates that the petitioner is not disputing the finding recorded against him and he was not also disputing the punishment awarded to him. The inquiry officer has clearly found that in view of the evidence given by the original complainant and other witnesses the amount of Rs. 600/- was in fact said by the present petitioner subsequent to the date on which it ought to have been paid and only because of the same, it has been held that he has committed wrong and the first charge against him stands proved. Taking into account the said finding of the inquiry officer, the punishment of stopping to two increments without future effect has been awarded. Therefore, in the circumstances, we are unable to hold that there is any illegality in awarding the punishment of stopping of two increments of the petitioner. ( 7 ) IT was vehemently urged by Mr. Desai on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was not considered for promotion due to the pendency of the said inquiry. In the petition though it is averred that there was delay in holding departmental inquiry, said claim was not pressed at the time of argument. However, in view the material on record, it is not possible to hold that there was such a delay so as to cause prejudice to the present petitioner. In the petition though it is averred that there was delay in holding departmental inquiry, said claim was not pressed at the time of argument. However, in view the material on record, it is not possible to hold that there was such a delay so as to cause prejudice to the present petitioner. The complaint was received in March, 1978 and the decision to take departmental inquiry was taken afte giving opportunity of explanining of the allegation to the petitioner and he was charge sheeted on 15. 4. 1982 and final punishment has been awarded on 9. 4. 1984. It is not the case of the petitioner that on account of delay in inquiry he was not in a position to produce the material which could have been produced by him to show his innocence. Therefore, in the circumstances it could not be said that there was delay in holding departmental inquiry and that the same has caused prejudice to the petitioner. ( 8 ) NOW it is the contention of Mr. Desai that on account of the said inquiry, though departmental Promotion Committee was held in March, 1983 and December, 1983, petitioner could not get his promotion. But in the affidavit in reply it has been clearly mentioned that the case of the petitioner was considered and "sealed cover proceudre" was followed by the Departmental Promotion Committee. The petitioner himself has also admitted this fact in para 9 of his petition which runs as under :"the petitioner states that during the pendency of this inquiry, the departmental Promotion Committee had met for the purpose of giving promotions to the post of Deputy Conservator of Forest. But the petitioner was not promoted, though his case was considered in accordance with the governments Resolution dated 23. 9. 1981 providing for the sealed cover procedure. " ( 9 ) THEREFORE, when the petitioners case was covered by the Departmental Promotion committee and "sealed cover procedure" was followed by the Committee it could not be said that the petitioner was denied all his chances of promotion on account of the said departmental inquiry. ( 10 ) IT must be remembered that promotional post of Deputy Conservator of Forests is a promotional post and the promotion it on the basis of merit and seniority. It is not a promotional post purely on the basis of seniority. ( 10 ) IT must be remembered that promotional post of Deputy Conservator of Forests is a promotional post and the promotion it on the basis of merit and seniority. It is not a promotional post purely on the basis of seniority. The petitioner was found guilty in the departmental inquiry of the charge levelled against him and he was also punished of stoppage of two increments with future effect. Therefore, in view of the sais fact, it could not be said that he was wrongly denied promotion which took place during the pendency of the departmental inquiry. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Principal chief Conservator of Forests in para 10 it has been mentioned that prior to this departmental inquiry there was earlier an inqiry and the petitioner was punished as per the order No. EST/dpe/5970/13-B-4184 dated 29. 5. 1981 and he was also punished by stopping one increment. Now when the petitioner was already punished once and when departmental inquiry was going on when the Departmental Promotion Committee met and in the said departmental inquiry he was found guilty to the charge levelled against him and when said found is found to be correct and proper, it could not be said that he has been wrongly denied promotion. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, in view of the above circumstances we are unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the petitionr that the petitioner is awarded double punishment (1) stoppage of two increments in the departmental inquiry and denial of promotion. Promotion being on the basis of merits. A person who has undergone two punishment could not be said to be possessing merits to get promotional post. Mr. Desai has cited before us the case of Shiv Kumar Sharma vs. Hdryana State electricity Board, AIR 1988 SC 1673 if the facts of the said case are considered then it would be quite clear that the same is not applicable to the facts before us. In that case the probationary Officer was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment but subsequently he was confirmed and then his seniority list was prepared. The seniority list was to be prepared not on the basis of any merits but purely on the basis of seniority on the date of joining service. In that case the probationary Officer was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment but subsequently he was confirmed and then his seniority list was prepared. The seniority list was to be prepared not on the basis of any merits but purely on the basis of seniority on the date of joining service. Once he was held to have satisfactorily completed probation period and was confirmed in the post, the action of lowering him down in the seniority list on account of the punishment of stopping of one increment, has been quashed and set aside in the said case on the ground that the Board had no written guidelines for confirmation as well as no Rules were framed as to when an officer should be confirmed. Thereafter he cited two other cases. They are1. O. P. Gupta vs. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Vol (II), 1995 slr 192. 2. Pravin Kumar Aggrawal vs. ICAR Krishi Bhavan All India Administrative law Times, 1968 (ii) 684. Both these cases are decisions of Central Administrative Tribunal. With due respect to the learned counsel it must be said that said decisions are not binding on us. Apart from this both cases are not applicable to the facts of the case before us. Stopping of increments in those cases were found to be not a ground for denying promotion as promotion was purely oh the basis of seniority and not on merits. ( 12 ) THE learned advocate has not pressed for claim that the Government Resolution in question is ultra vires the constitution. We have carefully gone through the said GR and we are unable to hold that any provision of the same is in violation of any provisions of the Constitution of India. No doubt said Resolution provides as under :"in the case of a Government servant who on conclusion of the departmental inquiry is not fully exonerated his case should he reconsidered by the departmental promotion committee in the light of the decision taken by the disciplinary authority in the disciplinary proceedings. The Committee shall thus makes suitable recommendations regarding the Government servants promotion or othersiwe. Where promotions are to be made without preparing a select list the same procedure shall be followed mutatis mutandis. A censure or a warning awarded or proposed to be awarded to Government servant need not be taken into account while considering his case for promotion. The Committee shall thus makes suitable recommendations regarding the Government servants promotion or othersiwe. Where promotions are to be made without preparing a select list the same procedure shall be followed mutatis mutandis. A censure or a warning awarded or proposed to be awarded to Government servant need not be taken into account while considering his case for promotion. "the above provision clearly shows that said Resolution has adopted the procedure of sealed cover. ( 13 ) THE next contention which was raised by the petitioner in his petition was as regards the provision of Rule 6 of the Rules being ultra vires the Constitution of India. The learned advocate for the petitioner was not in a position to demonstrate as to how it was violative of fundamental rights and how it was contrary to the provisions of the constitution of India. Rule 6 of the Rules runs as under:"6. Nature of Penalties. Without prejudice to the provision of any law for the time being in force, the following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons, be imposed upon any member of the State, Subordinate or Inferior service namely : minor penalties (1) Censure. (2) Withholding of increments or promotion. (3) Recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to government by negligence or breach of orders. Major penalties (4) Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the Government servant will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the further incrementds of pay. (5) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the Government servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further direction regarding conditions or restoration to the grade or post or service from which the Government servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post or service. (6) Compulsory retirement. (7) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Government. (8) Dismissal from Service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Government. (6) Compulsory retirement. (7) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment under Government. (8) Dismissal from Service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under Government. EXPLANATION :the following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this rule : (1) Withholding of increments in pay of a Government servant for failure to pass a departmental or other examination in accordance with the rules or orders in this behalf for the time being in force or in accordance with the terms of his appointment. (2) Stoppage of pay of a Government servant at the efficiency bar in the lime scale on the ground of his unfitness to cross the bar. (3) Non-promotion in a substantive or officiation capacity of a Government servant to a service, grade or post for promotion to which he is in ordinary course eligible, on administrative grounds and not a measure of penalty on the ground of his misconduct. (4) Reversion to a lower service, grade of post of a Government servant officiating in a higher service, grade or post on the ground that he is considered, after trial, to be unsuitable for such higher service, grade or post or on purely administrative grounds. (5) Reversion to his permanent service, grade or post of a Government service appointed on probation to another service, grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules or orders of Government in this behalf for the lime being in force. (6) Replacement of the service of a Government servant whose services had been borrowed from Central Government or other State Government or any other authority, at the disposal of the Central or State Government or the authority from which the services of such Government servant had been borrowed. (7) Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions of any law or rules for the time being in force relating to such retirement. (7) Compulsory retirement of a Government servant in accordance with the provisions of any law or rules for the time being in force relating to such retirement. (8) Termination of Service (A) of a Government servant appointed on probation during or at the end of the period of probation in accordance with the terms of his appointment or the rules and orders of Government in this behalf for the time being in force, or (B) of a temporary Government servant on purely administrative grounds, or (C) of a Government servant employed under a contract in accordance with the terms of such contract. "if the above provisions of the said rules are considered then it is difficult to hold that said provisions are contrary to the Constitution of India and they are violation of any principles of natural justice as well as destroying any fundamental right of any citizen. Thus we hold that there is no substance in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. We accordingly dismiss the same. No order as to costs. Rule discharged. .