S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a Mamlatdar, now Dy. Collector in the Revenue department of the Government of Gujarat, filed this Special Civil Application and prayer has been made that respondent be directed to grant promotion to the petitioner on the post of Deputy Collector with retrospective effect from 26th November, 1983. Further prayer has been made that pending admission, final hearing and disposal of this petition, the respondent be directed to complete enquiry pending pursuant to the second and third charge-sheets within a period of three months. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was not given promotion to the post of Deputy collector as the departmental enquiry was pending against him. However, this Court has ordered on 7. 11. 1990 and in pursuance of that order the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Deputy Collector from retrospective effect, i. e. , from 26th November, 1983 and the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press that prayer made in the Special Civil application. ( 3 ) THE Special Civil Application has been amended and the order dated 6th september, 1990 of the respondent-State has been challenged. Under the order dated 6th september, 1990, the disciplinary authority, after examining the enquiry report of the enquiry officer, submitted against the petitioner on the charges framed vide chargesheet dated 30th August, 1986, remitted back the matter to enquiry officer for fresh enquiry after examining three witnesses which have been dropped by the presiding officer and to examine two further witnesses. ( 4 ) THE facts of the case, in brief are to be taken for the purpose of appreciating the contentions now made by learned counsel for the petitioner in this Special Civil application. The petitioner was served with a chargesheet on 4. 7. 1984 wherein he has been exonerated under the order dated 20. 6. 1986 of the respondent. On 26th November, 1983, a person junior to the petitioner has been given promotion to the post of Deputy collector. After exoneration, the petitioner submitted representation to the respondent to give him promotion to the post of Dy. Collector. On 30th August, 1986, another chargesheet has been given to the petitioner in connection with misconduct committed by him while working as Mamlatdar at Navsari. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the charges have been framed in the chargesheet are very serious. Collector. On 30th August, 1986, another chargesheet has been given to the petitioner in connection with misconduct committed by him while working as Mamlatdar at Navsari. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the charges have been framed in the chargesheet are very serious. The petitioner was chargesheeted that he had accepted bribe from one person for doing his work. So the charge against the petitioner is very grave and serious. Thereafter, on 15th april, 1987, enquiry officer has been appointed to hold inquiry by respondent on the charges given to the petitioner under Memo dated 30th August, 1986. In the meanwhile, the petitioner submitted application to the respondent to complete the enquiry expeditiously and the respondent also directed the enquiry officer to complete the enquiry expeditiously. Enquiry has been completed and report has been submitted to the respondent by enquiry officer on 23rd October, 1989 as stated by the petitioner. Third chargesheet has been given to the petitioner vide memo dated 22. 2. 1990. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in this chargesheet also, the petitioner has been exonerated. After submission of the enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed this Special Civil Application. The petitioner has come up with the case that the enquiry officer did not approve the charges framed against the petitioner but the disciplinary authority did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer and under the order dated 6. 9. 1990, the disciplinary authority remitted the matter back to the inquiry officer for fresh enquiry. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a malafide action on the part of respondent which has been deliberately taken against the petitioner who belongs to schedule Caste. It has next been contended that there is a delay in initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner and as such, the order dated 6th September, 1990 deserves to be quashed and set aside. It has next been contended that the disciplinary authority has committed serious illegality in giving direction to the enquiry officer to examine three witnesses dropped by the presenting officer and further giving direction to examine more witnesses which were not listed in the enquiry against him. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. ( 6 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that this writ petition is wholly misconceived. This writ petition has been filed originally with the only prayer of giving promotion and further direction to respondent to complete the enquiry within reasonable time. The petitioner has not made originally grievance that chargesheet has been given to him with malafide intention or there is a delay in giving the chargesheet etc. So these two contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner are not available. So far as other contentions are concerned, the learned counsel for respondent submitted that three witnesses which have been dropped by the presenting officer were material witnesses. Non examination of those witnesses has resulted in serious case of charges of taking of illegal gratification to be "charge not proved". Two other material witnesses have also not been examined. It is true that those two witnesses were not listed but still the power of the disciplinary authority is wider and if it felt that those are material and relevant witnesses, they could have been examined and to this direction, no exception can be taken. However, the learned counsel for the respondent very failry conceded that the enquiry has to be completed within a reasonable time. He further contended that enquiry could not be completed as on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court has stayed further proceedings in the enquiry. ( 7 ) I have given my thoughtful considerations to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. ( 8 ) THE petitioner, in this Special Civil Application, has not made the grievance, namely, (i) the chargesheet dated 30th August, 1986 is a result of malafide action on the part of respondent, (ii) there is a delay in giving the chargesheet to the petitioner and (iii) any prejudice, much less material prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in his defence because of this delay in serving of the chargesheet. The prayer of the petitioner was only that direction may be given to the respondent to complete the enquiry. If we go by substance of the original petition the petitioner was only interested in his promotion and early disposal of the enquiry. The disciplinary authority may. or may not accept the enquiry report. The prayer of the petitioner was only that direction may be given to the respondent to complete the enquiry. If we go by substance of the original petition the petitioner was only interested in his promotion and early disposal of the enquiry. The disciplinary authority may. or may not accept the enquiry report. Where the disciplinary authority is not in agreement with the finding of the enquiry officer, the only requirement is that it has to record its reasons for disagreement. At this stage three courses are open to the disciplinary authority. Firstly if it is satisfied that the misconduct is not proved, the delinquent officer may be exonerated from the charges framed against him. This is not the case here. Second course is if sufficient evidence is available on record, the disciplinary authority may pass the order of giving appropriate penalty to the delinquent officer for the misconduct found proved against him. That is also not the case here. The last option is to remit the matter back to the enquiry officer where the disciplinary authority feels that there is some illegality in the proceedings or glaring error has been committed in the proceedings. In the present case, three witnesses have been dropped by the presenting officer. The disciplinary authority found that these three witnesses were material witnesses and non examination of these witnesses has resulted in finding of the charges, in favour of the petitioner. Much emphasis has been put by learned counsel for the petitioner on the fact that once the presenting officer has come given up witnesses, the disciplinary authority has no power to order for examination of those witnesses. Though this argument has been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, he failed to show any provision from the relevant disciplinary and Appeal Rules which puts such a bar on the powers of the disciplinary authority. Rule10 has been referred by learned counsel for the petitioner from the disciplinary and Appeal Rules, but after reading the same, I do not find any provision thereon which prohibits the disciplinary authority to give direction to examine those witnesses which have been dropped by the presenting officer. It is not the case of petitioner that those three witnesses were dropped by presenting officer after taking the disciplinary authority into confidence. It is not the case of petitioner that those three witnesses were dropped by presenting officer after taking the disciplinary authority into confidence. So far as the other two witnesses are concerned, it is true that those are not listed, but the disciplinary authority could have ordered for examination of those witnesses when it considered them to be important and necessary witnesses in the matter. The witnesses which have not been cited in the enquiry can be examined in the enquiry itself where those witnesses are considered to be necessary and relevant. The only thing necessary is that the delinquent officer should have advance information of examination of those witnesses so that he may have sufficient opportunity to prepare himself for cross-examination of those witnesses. In the present case, the petitioner will have sufficient opportunity to prepare himself for cross-examination of those witnesses. ( 9 ) I find sufficient merits in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent that the grounds of malafides and delay in giving the chargesheet etc. , are only an afterthought of the petitioner when the order has been made by disciplinary authority against him on 6th September, 1990. It is true that the enquiry officer has not found any charge proved against him, but so far as the plea of malafide and delay in serving chargesheet are concerned, it has nothing to do with the ultimate finding of the enquiry officer. If the petitioner has considered it to be a serious point, then he should have raised this point in the original petition, i. e. , earlier to 6th September, 1990. However, I have indepedently examined this. grievance of the petitioner also. After going through the averments made in the amended Special Civil Application, I do not find anything on the record to show that this act of respondent is malafide. The plea of the malafide has been taken in the course of agruments by the learned counsel for the petitioner but very specifically this plea has not been pleaded and above that the petitioner has not given out the name of the officer. The necessary ingredients to constitute plea of malafides as well as the person who has acted in malafide manner in the matter has not been disclosed. The necessary ingredients to constitute plea of malafides as well as the person who has acted in malafide manner in the matter has not been disclosed. So far as other plea of delay in giving the chargesheet is concerned, it is suffice to say that only on the ground of delay in chargesheet as well as enquiry, it is not vitiated. The petitioner has to produce sufficient material on record that this delay in giving chargesheet has caused prejudice to his defence. Because of this delay in serving of the chargesheet the evidence in defence may not be available. Mere statement of fact that chargesheet has been given after considerable delay itself is not sufficient to quash the same on this ground. What further has to be pleaded by the petitioner and to prove to the satisfaction of the Court is altogether missing in the Special Civil Application. After going through the contents of Special Civil Application, I do not find anything on behalf of the petitioner to show and satisfy this Court that delay will cause any prejudice to the petitioner in defence or because of delay in serving chargesheet material witnesses may not be available. Reference in this respect may have to the decision of the Honble Supreme court in the case of State of Punjab vs. Chamanlal, reported in JT 1995 (2) SC 18 as well decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 10915 of 1995, Kaushik T. Patel vs. Gujarat Water Resources Dev. Corp. , d/o 20. 2. 1996. ( 10 ) THE petitioner has failed to show what prejudice is to be caused to him in case three dropped witnesses are ordered to be examined and two further witnesses are directed to be examined by the enquiry officer. In the matter of departmental enquiry, the most important thing is to show that by examination of witnesses, some prejudice will be caused to the delinquent officer. Merely on technical plea the delinquent officer against whom there are serious, charges of accepting illegal gratification will not be allowed to have a free hand. However, it is a matter of serious concern that the respondent has taken this matter very casually and lightly. There were serious charges of accepting illegal gratification against the petitioner and as such, it should have proceeded expeditiously. However, it is a matter of serious concern that the respondent has taken this matter very casually and lightly. There were serious charges of accepting illegal gratification against the petitioner and as such, it should have proceeded expeditiously. If the charges are really true and are proved, the respondents should have endeavoured to see that such officer is removed from the services immediately. Be that as it may. After 6th September, 1990, if any delay is there, then it is only as a result of what the petitioner has prayed for and this Court has accepted to stay further proceedings of the enquiry. ( 11 ) TAKING into consideration the totality of the facts of this case, I do not find any substance in the matter. The Special Civil Application deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. Rule discharged. However, the dismissal of this Special Civil application will not have any effect on promotion of the petitioner which has been given to him during the pendency of this Special Civil Application. The respondent is directed to complete the enquiry against the petitioner within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. .