JUDGMENT : 1. The present petition is directed against order dated 24.02.2009 passed by the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Appeal No.144/07 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order of DDO for imposition of punishment and that of the Development Commissioner in appeal and has remanded the matter to the DDO. 2. The short facts of the case appears to be that respondent no.1 was an employee of Junagadh District Panchayat and was working as Malaria Supervisor. As per the petitioner, since certain complaints were received about the various irregularities, the chargesheet was issued and ultimately, the inquiry was held. The respondent no.1 was also placed under suspension. In the said departmental inquiry, on 14.07.2003, the inquiry officer submitted the report and two charges were partly proved and two charges were not proved out of total six charges. As per the petitioner, the inquiry report was sent to the respondent no.1 on 20.04.2005. The same was also served by the postal department to the respondent no.1 on 30.04.2005. The petitioner consulted the Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board andultimately, vide order dated 28.09.2005, the respondent no.1 was dismissed from service. The said order was challenged by the respondent no.1 before the Additional Development Commissioner in Appeal No.75/05 and the said appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.04.2007. The respondent no.1 further carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal No.144/07 and the Tribunal vide order dated 24.02.2009 found that the second show-cause notice was not served along with the inquiry report and therefore, as second show-cause notice was not served, the impugned order for imposition of punishment was quashed and the matter has been remanded to the DDO, Junagadh. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court. 3. I have heard Mr.Munshaw, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr.Gohel for Mr.Supehia for respondent no.1 and Mr.Jayswal, AGP for the Tribunal. 4. It appears that the error apparent on the face of the record has been committed by the Tribunal in finding that the show-cause notice was required to be served in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SCC 1074. 4. It appears that the error apparent on the face of the record has been committed by the Tribunal in finding that the show-cause notice was required to be served in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL v. B.Karunakar reported in AIR 1994 SCC 1074. However, the Tribunal lost sight of the important aspect that the disciplinary proceedings in the present matter were initiated after June 2002 and the order for imposition of punishment came to be passed on 28.09.2005. Whereas, by amendment in Gujarat Panchayat Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1997, which are applicable to the present case, the earlier provision for second show-cause notice came to be deleted vide notification dated 05.02.2002. It is on account of the aforesaid aspect having not considered by the Tribunal, it has proceeded on the basis that there was requirement to serve second show cause notice with the inquiry report and as the same was not served, the opportunity was not given to the respondent no.1 and hence, the order was quashed and set aside. 5. At this stage, it may be recorded that Rule 8(11) of the aforesaid Rules provided for clause (b) prior to 05.02.2002 as under: “together with the copy of the notice given under sub-clause (b) of clause (11) above and the representation made in response to such notice, if any” But the aforesaid clause (b) of sub-rule (11) of Rule 8 as per Jindal’s third edition of the Gujarat Panchayats Manual shows that the same was deleted vide notification dated 05.02.2002. 6. Under the circumstances, when the legislature had consciously deleted the requirement to give second show-cause notice with the inquiry report, the finding of the Tribunal that the second show-cause notice was required to be served with the inquiry report and as was not served, in my view, is by committing error apparent on the face of record. As such, the aforesaid amendment is not brought to the notice of the Tribunal. Therefore, the error has crept in. 7. I would have further considered the matter, but it appears that the Tribunal has not examined the merits of the matter while sitting in appeal as to whether the imposition of the punishment for dismissal otherwise or on other ground was proper or not. 8. Therefore, the error has crept in. 7. I would have further considered the matter, but it appears that the Tribunal has not examined the merits of the matter while sitting in appeal as to whether the imposition of the punishment for dismissal otherwise or on other ground was proper or not. 8. Under the circumstances, it can be said that the Tribunal has committed error apparent on the face of record. The consequence would be that the matter will have to be remanded to the Tribunal by setting aside the order impugned in the present petition. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.144/07 (Annexure-L) is quashed and set aside with the further direction that the said Appeal No.144/07 shall stand restored to the file of the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall examine the matter afresh keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the present judgment and shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 10. Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. Petition allowed.