Judgment Ms. R.M. Doshit, J.—Heard the learned Advocates. With the consent of the learned advocates, the Appeals are heard and decided today. 2. These two Appeals preferred under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent arise from the judgments and orders dated 16th January, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in respective writ petition. 3. The appellant is a retired servant of the Government of Gujarat. The appellant entered the service in the year 1959 as an overseer. On reaching the age of superannuation, he retired from service on 30th June, 1991 as an Executive Engineer. Prior to his retirement from service, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant on 12th July, 1989. Another inquiry came to be initiated on 29th June, 1991, a date previous to the date of his retirement. Both these inquiries were challenged by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution in the above Special Civil Application No. 7171 of 1992. The petition was admitted to final hearing. Pending the petition, this Court (Coram : Mr. M.S. Parikh, J.) was pleased to direct, inter alia, that “instead of staying the departmental inquiry, the same should be allowed to be proceeded with; although the decision taken thereof shall be placed before this Court and shall not be implemented without direction of this Court...” 4. It appears that pending the petition, the disciplinary proceeding was completed in the year 1997. By order dated 27th November, 1997 made by the State Government, the appellant was visited with punishment of reduction in monthly pension by Rs. 500/-. Nevertheless, neither the said order was placed on the record of the Special Civil Application No. 7171 of 1992 nor was the permission to implement the order was sought. In the result, the order of punishment was not implemented till the date of the order. We are informed that it has not been implemented as yet. 5. The appellant sought to challenge the above referred order of punishment dated 27th November, 1997 in the above Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2009. 6. On 16th January, 2009, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Special Civil Application No. 7171 of 1992 as having become infructuous and to dismiss the Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2009 as barred by delay and laches. Therefore, the present Appeals. 7. We have considered the challenge on merits. 6. On 16th January, 2009, the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Special Civil Application No. 7171 of 1992 as having become infructuous and to dismiss the Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2009 as barred by delay and laches. Therefore, the present Appeals. 7. We have considered the challenge on merits. It is true that the Special Civil Application No. 7171 of 1992 challenged the commencement of the disciplinary proceeding. Pending the petition, the proceeding had been completed and order of punishment was made. The order of punishment was challenged in the above Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2009. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the Special Civil Application No. 7171 of 1992 as infructuous. 8. We, however, are of the opinion that the challenge to the order of punishment ought not to have been rejected as barred by delay and laches. As recorded hereinabove, though the State Government had made the order as far back as in the year 1997; till the year 2009, i.e. for more than eleven years, neither the State Government sought permission of the Court as contemplated by the interim order nor was the order implemented. True the appellant could have challenged the order of punishment earlier either in a substantive petition or by amending the pending writ petition but since the order was not sought to be implemented, the appellant had no cause of action to challenge the same. 9. We have perused the charge-sheets issued against the appellant. The first charge issued on 12th July, 1989 was in respect of the period from July, 1971 to November, 1980. It was alleged that the appellant did not submit the required Form No. 11 in respect of the stores within the specified time. Second charge issued on 29th June, 1991 also related to the stock register. It was alleged that at the time of his transfer (the date of transfer is not indicated), the appellant did not hand over the charge of the stores and thus was negligent in performing his duties. The appellant is held guilty of both the aforesaid charges and has been punished by reduction in pension. 10. We have recorded the charges with a view to bringing home that the charges were more of technical nature rather than substantive. No malice or ulterior intention was attributed to the appellant. The appellant is held guilty of both the aforesaid charges and has been punished by reduction in pension. 10. We have recorded the charges with a view to bringing home that the charges were more of technical nature rather than substantive. No malice or ulterior intention was attributed to the appellant. We are, therefore, of the opinion that for the above referred guilt established against the appellant, since it has not been implemented for nearly twelve years, the order of punishment should not now be permitted to be implemented nearly twenty years after the retirement of the appellant from service. 11. We clarify that we do not intend to say that the appellant was not required to maintain the records or that he was not required to submit the reports. Nor do we intend to say that such laxity in performance of duty should be viewed lightly or should not call for any punishment. We have granted this indulgence only because no overt act has been attributed to the appellant and that the appellant is now nearing the age of eighty years. It is the negligence of the State Government in not placing the order of punishment before the Court and in not seeking permission to implement the order of punishment which impels us to interfere in the matter and to set aside the order of punishment. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the Letters Patent Appeal No. 1378 of 2009 is dismissed. The Letters Patent Appeal No. 1008 of 2009 is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 16th January, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in the above Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2009 is set aside. The Special Civil Application No. 294 of 2009 is allowed. The impugned order of punishment dated 27th November, 1997 made by the State Government is quashed and set aside. 13. Civil Application stands disposed of. The parties will bear their own cost. Registry will maintain copy of this order in each Appeal.