Judgment M.R. Shah, J.—Rule. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondents. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, order and/or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 1st November, 2002 passed by Respondent No. 3 withholding one increment for one year without future effect as well as order dated 23rd January, 2007 passed by Respondent No. 3 treating the period of suspension of the petitioner as such and not on duty. 3. The petitioner has also prayed to quash and set aside the communication dated 17th April, 2007 passed by Respondent No. 3, rejecting the representation / application submitted by the petitioner to reconsider the earlier decisions/ orders dated 1st November, 2002 and 23rd January, 2007. 4. The petitioner was serving as A.S.I. and while he was on escort duty along with other four policemen, five prisoners, while getting down the stairs in Bhardra Court, Ahmedabad, the said prisoners managed to escape from the custody. The Police Commissioner lodged a criminal complaint against the petitioner and other four policemen at Karanj Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149, 223, 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code, 1961. However during the pendency of the criminal trial, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and four other policemen and all of them had placed under suspension. The departmental inquiry has been initiated on charges of negligence in escort duty. 5. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner denied the charge of negligence by his written submission dated 3rd June, 2002. That thereafter Respondent No. 3 appointed Inquiry Officer on 27th June, 2002 for conducting the departmental inquiry. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the Inquiry Officer actuated by the motive to cut short the inquiry, compelled the petitioner to accept the charge and plead guilty. The petitioner merely stated that he may be given compassionate consideration and the whole inquiry may be closed with a minor penalty. That the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report based upon the aforesaid statement of the petitioner and reported to Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner had pleaded guilty and charge against the petitioner has been proved. The petitioner merely stated that he may be given compassionate consideration and the whole inquiry may be closed with a minor penalty. That the Inquiry Officer submitted inquiry report based upon the aforesaid statement of the petitioner and reported to Respondent No. 3 that the petitioner had pleaded guilty and charge against the petitioner has been proved. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the said report of the Inquiry Officer was rejected by Respondent No. 3 on the ground that the said statement stated to be a plea of guilty, cannot be relied upon. Respondent No. 3 returned the Inquiry Report to the Inquiry Officer with his remark on 27th August, 2002. 6. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter Respondent No. 3 passed final order of imposing the penalty of withholding one increment for one year without future effect. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as such the petitioner was to retire in just 8 months’ time on 31st June, 2003 on attaining the age of superannuation and there was no increment falling due for release to the petitioner in the next 8 months and, therefore imposing such a penalty was of no consequence. Thereafter, suspension period has been regularized treating it as such. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that subsequently petitioner and other policemen came to be acquitted vide judgment and order dated 20th September, 2006 and, therefore, the petitioner submitted the application dated 5th March, 2007 to reconsider the earlier decisions / orders dated 1st November, 2002 and 23rd January, 2007 passed by Respondent No. 3 by submitting that the Competent Criminal Court has acquitted the petitioner. The said application came to be rejected vide communication dated 17th April, 2007. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of penalty / punishment dated 1st November, 2002; order dated 23rd January, 2007 passed by Respondent No. 3 regularizing the period of suspension of the petitioner as such and not as duty and communication dated 17th April, 2007 rejecting the application of the petitioner to reconsider the aforesaid two orders. 7. Mr. 7. Mr. S.N. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that before imposing the penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect and holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct, no regular departmental inquiry has been initiated. Therefore, it is submitted that impugned order of punishment dated 1st November, 2002 is against the principles of natural justice and the same deserves to be quash and set aside. 8. It is further submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner that his earlier statement pleading the guilty, which was recorded by Inquiry Officer in its report, was not accepted by Respondent No. 3 - Commissioner of Police and the matter was remanded to Inquiry Officer on 27th August, 2002 and thereafter, without any further action taken in the matter, Respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order dated 1st November, 2002 of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect, which deserves to be quash and set aside. It is further submitted that even the order dated 23rd January, 2007 regularizing the period of suspension of the petitioner as such and not as duty also required to be quashed and set aside as the said order is based upon the order of punishment dated 1st November, 2002. 9. Mr. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner by the Competent Court vide order dated 20th September, 2006, the respondents ought to have reconsidered the earlier decisions/orders dated 1st November, 2002 and 23rd January, 2007 as the petitioner and others have not been held negligence. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition. 10. The present petition is opposed by Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. It is submitted that as such the present petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st November, 2002 of imposing punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect in the year 2008. It is submitted that as such the present petition deserves to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and latches. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 1st November, 2002 of imposing punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect in the year 2008. It is submitted that as such the impugned order of withholding of one increment for one year has already recovered from the petitioner on 13th January, 2003 in full and final decision of the impugned order and the petitioner accepted the same. Therefore, now, it is not open for the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment / penalty dated 1st November, 2002. It is further submitted that even after the papers were returned by the Commissioner of Police to the Inquiry Officer vide communication dated 27th August, 2002, the petitioner again admitted the charge of negligence and requested to impose minor punishment and the petitioner gave another statement on 4th September, 2002. It is submitted that in view of admission by the petitioner of admitting the charge of negligence, no further departmental inquiry was required to be continued and, therefore, when relying upon the admission of the petitioner, Respondent No. 3 has passed impugned order dated 1st November, 2002 imposing punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect, it cannot be said that the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice. 11. Mr. J.K. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents heavily replied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Chairman & Managing Director, V.S.P. and Others vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 , in support of his submission that in view of admission of petitioner admitting the charge of negligence, a further detailed inquiry was not needed. Relying upon the aforesaid decision, it is requested to dismiss the present petition. 12. Having heard learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length, it appears that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on charge of negligence in escort duty. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner admitted charge of negligence and Inquiry Officer submitted the report to Respondent No. 3- Disciplinary Authority holding the charge of negligence proved against the petitioner relying upon the statement of the petitioner. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and Inquiry Officer was appointed. The petitioner admitted charge of negligence and Inquiry Officer submitted the report to Respondent No. 3- Disciplinary Authority holding the charge of negligence proved against the petitioner relying upon the statement of the petitioner. However, having found that the statement of the petitioner was conditional one of imposing minor punishment, Respondent No. 3 - Disciplinary Authority did not accept the same and returned the inquiry report to the Inquiry Officer on 27th August, 2002. It appears from the proceedings that the inquiry was proceeded further by the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner again admitted the charge of negligence alleged against him by statement dated 4th September, 2002 and the said statement of admitting the charge of negligence was unconditional. The petitioner requested for minor punishment. Thereafter, relying upon the statement of the petitioner dated 4th September, 2002 admitting the charge of negligence, Respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order dated 1st November, 2002 imposing punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect. 13. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that before imposing punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect, no regular departmental inquiry has been initiated against the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of punishment dated 1st November, 2002 deserves to be quashed and set aside as the same is in breach of principles of natural justice. The aforesaid submission cannot be accepted in view of the admission of the charge by the petitioner vide his statement dated 4th September, 2002. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu (Supra) once an employee has admitted the misconduct and/or charge and the penalty is based on such a admission, a further detailed inquiry need not be held and such a penalty is valid in view of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, during the departmental proceedings, the employee in inquiry admitted the charges and based upon the said admission without any further detailed inquiry, penalty came to be imposed and to that the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that in terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, charges having been admitted were not required to be proved and on that premise the inquiry proceedings can be closed. In the said decision, decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2005) 11 SCC 314 has been considered. In view of the above decision also, once the petitioner admitted the guilt and the charges levelled against him, a further departmental inquiry was not required to be held and proceeded further. As per Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, a thing admitted need not be proved. A further departmental inquiry is required, to prove the charge levelled against the employee. Once the petitioner/ employee admits the guilt / charge, further continuation of the departmental inquiry will be exercise in futility as the charge is already admitted by the petitioner / employee. Considering the above, when Respondent No. 3 -Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect, it cannot be said that the same is in breach of principles of natural justice on the ground that further departmental inquiry has not been conducted. Therefore, the impugned order of punishment of withholding of one increment without future effect is not required to be interfered by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 14. The consequential further order of regularizing the period of suspension treating as such, does not warrant any interference of this Court as the authority is well within its right to regularize the period of suspension as such. 15. Now, so far as contention on behalf of the petitioner that as the petitioner has been subsequently acquitted by competent Civil Court and, therefore, the authority ought to have reconsidered the earlier decisions/orders cannot be accepted. The petitioner might have been acquitted by the Criminal Court but in view of admission of the petitioner himself, admitting the charge of negligence in duty, now it is not open for the petitioner to contend that he has not committed any misconduct of negligence. 16. For the reasons stated herein above, there is no substance in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs.