Judgment K.S. Jhaveri J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:— (A) That by a writ of mandamus and/or a writ in the nature of mandamus and/or by appropriate writ, order or direction, the order of penalty passed by Manager, Personnel dated 21.04.93, Annexure : K to the petition and the order of Executive Director, passed in appeal dated 15.04.99, Annexure : Q to the petition be quashed and/or set aside and the respondents herein be directed to immediately reinstate the petitioner to the post of Senior Assistant & In charge Godown Manager in the service of respondent-Corporation w.e.f. 21.05.92 i.e. the date on which the petitioner was suspended. Respondents be further directed to give all consequential benefits of continuous service, increments etc. and the respondents be directed to consider the petitioner for promotion in accordance with the proper seniority and he be further promoted. (B) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the execution operation and implementation of the order of penalty dated 21.04.93 Annexure : K to the petition and order of Executive Director dated 15.04.99 passed in appeal at Annexure: Q be stayed and the respondents herein be directed to consider the petitioner in service as Assistant with all the consequential benefits from the date of his suspension i.e. 21.5.92. (c) xxxxxxxx (D) xxxxxxxx” 2. The brief facts leading to filing of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant in the service of respondent-corporation on 18th November, 1982. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Senior Assistant & In-charge Godown Manager at Jodiya in District Jamnagar w.e.f. 31st October, 1985. While the petitioner was working at Jodiya, On 17.05.1992 a criminal case was filed against the petitioner and petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 21st May, 1992. Thereafter, on 30.06.1992 the petitioner was given a charge-sheet for departmental inquiry with the statement of allegations. The petitioner vide letter dated 06.07.1992 demanded the various documents. Some of the documents were given to the petitioner and petitioner was told to obtain said documents from the office of District Supply Mamlatdar. Vide letter dated 28.07.1992 the petitioner again demanded several documents. However, the same are not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 10.08.1992. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. 2.1. Vide letter dated 28.07.1992 the petitioner again demanded several documents. However, the same are not supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed reply to the charge-sheet on 10.08.1992. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report and held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. 2.1. On 15.02.1993, second Show cause notice was given to the petitioner stating therein that as to why he should not be removed from the service by way of penalty. The petitioner gave reply on 04.03.1993. Vide order dated 21.04.1993 the petitioner was reverted to the post of Assistant Depot. Manager w.e.f. 21.05.1992. Thereafter, on 25.06.1993 the petitioner was given third show cause notice for review of the penalty by the General Manager (Administration) stating therein that as to why penalty imposed upon him should not be enhanced under Rule 6(5) and 6(8) of the Gujarat Civil Supplied Corporation Ltd. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1984. On 09.07.1993 the petitioner gave reply to the third show cause notice. On 19.08.1993 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner by filing FIR under Section 272 and 409 of IPC. The JMFC, Dhroi-Jodiya after hearing the parties acquitted the petitioner from the charges levelled against him. The General Manager (Administration) vide order dated 15.04.1997 confirmed the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by Manager, Personnel earlier. 2.2. There after, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation. On 15.04.1999 the Executive Director of respondent-Corporation dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by his order dated 15th April 1999 and confirmed the earlier penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Hence, this petition. 3. Heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and perused the record. Learned advocate for the petitioner has mainly concentrated on the point of penalty imposed by the respondent authority, whereby the petitioner was reverted to the lower cadre i.e. as Assistant Godown Manager from the date of suspension i.e. w.e.f. 21st May 1992 and further penalty was imposed that he will not be considered for promotion for 20 years and he will not be posted as Godown Manager in future and contended that the penalties imposed upon the petitioner are illegal, improper and unjust and required interference by this Court. 4. Learned advocate for the respondents Mr. Patel submitted that looking to the seriousness of the charges it will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute the penalty. 5. 4. Learned advocate for the respondents Mr. Patel submitted that looking to the seriousness of the charges it will not be appropriate for this Court to substitute the penalty. 5. As a result of hearing and upon perusal of the record, I am of the opinion that as far as the penalty of reversion is just and proper. However, the penalty imposed by the respondent to the petitioner to the effect that he will not be promoted to the higher post for 20 years is not just and proper, as the promotion of the petitioner will be withheld for a period of 20 years and he is also reduced to lower post of Assistant Depot. Manager. This Court is of the opinion that imposing of both penalties amounts to double jeopardy inasmuch as either of the penalties prescribed can be imposed upon the petitioner. However, two penalties separately prescribed under Rule 6 can not be imposed as it will amount to double jeopardy. Apart from that, the statement recorded of the persons are ex-parte and the petitioner was not given any opportunity for cross-examining them. Therefore, the order of penalty in so far as it deprives the petitioner’s promotion for a period of 20 years is quashed and set aside. However, the reversion order passed by the respondent-authority is just and proper and the same is confirmed. 6. In view of the above, this petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. P P P P P