JUDGMENT : P.P. Bhatt, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for issuance of writ/order for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 23.08.2002 (Annexure-E), whereby penalty of withholding one increment without future effect was inflicted upon the petitioner as well as order dated 24.01.2015 whereby suspension period was not regularised. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under:- Petitioner was serving as Assistant Director since 10.01.1972 in the office of Deputy Director, Health and Medical Services, Rajkot. A charge-sheet was issued upon to the petitioner on 31st May, 1995 for holding a Departmental Inquiry in respect of five charges mainly in respect of absence from duty. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 12.01.2000 and found all the charges proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority gave second show cause notice and after affording an opportunity to submit his explanation, by order dated 23rd August 2002, penalty of withholding of one increment for 1 year without future effect was inflicted upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner made representation for regularization of suspension period but the said request was turned down and period of suspension from 15.11.1994 to 19.05.2002 was ordered to be treated as suspension period. Thereafter petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 15358 of 2006 challenging the order dated 24th January 2005 by which the suspension period was not regularized. The said petition came to be disposed of by order dated 28.07.2006 by observing inter alia that petitioner can revive his challenge as regard treatment of suspension period. It is also observed in that order that if petitioner takes legal recourse and succeeds in having the order of penalty set aside the period of suspension will have to be reconsidered, in para 4.1 liberty was given to the petitioner to revive his challenge if respondent reduce the pensionable service. Therefore, by way of present petition now the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority whereby punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect is challenged as well as order dated 24.01.2005 whereby suspension period was not regularised. 3. Therefore, by way of present petition now the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority whereby punishment of withholding of one increment for one year without future effect is challenged as well as order dated 24.01.2005 whereby suspension period was not regularised. 3. The learned advocate for the petitioner made following submissions:- (i) That the order passed by the respondent is illegal, arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned advocate for the petitioner, he submitted representation dated 3.04.2000, which contained 15 hand written pages in the said representation he raised many factual and legal points which are required to be considered and dealt with by the State Government. However, without assigning any reason the State Government imposed the punishment for withholding of increment for a period of one year without future effect. It is submitted that the order passed by the respondent-State Government is not a reasoned order, and therefore on this count the said order is required to be set aside. (ii) That the Inquiry Officer has also not recorded findings as it was required to be recorded in light of Sub-rule (22) of Rule 09 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1971. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner five charges were levelled against the petitioner and hence the Inquiry Officer was required to record five different findings against each charge, likewise, the disciplinary authority is also required to give reasons while accepting the report of Inquiry Officer but no such exercise was undertaken by the respondent, and therefore on this count, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. The learned advocate for the petitioner also submits that the Inquiry Officer was appointed after a period of four years, the petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 27.07.1995 and thereafter, Inquiry Officer was appointed on 04.11.1999. The preliminary statement of petitioner was recorded on 09.12.1999 and thereafter, the inquiry report was submitted on 12.01.2000, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing penalty upon the petitioner on 23.08.2002. (iii) That the petitioner fully cooperated with the departmental proceedings but considerable long period is taken by the respondent to conclude the said departmental inquiry. The preliminary statement of petitioner was recorded on 09.12.1999 and thereafter, the inquiry report was submitted on 12.01.2000, and thereafter, the disciplinary authority passed an order imposing penalty upon the petitioner on 23.08.2002. (iii) That the petitioner fully cooperated with the departmental proceedings but considerable long period is taken by the respondent to conclude the said departmental inquiry. In this context the learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there is Government Circular dated 11.01.1979, which provides that the inquiry initiated against the officers/employees should be completed within four months but in the instant case the inquiry proceedings were concluded after considerable long period of about 6 years and therefore on this count also the impugned order may be set aside. (iv) That the procedure laid down in Rule 9 of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971, for imposing major penalty was followed in the present case but a minor penalty was imposed. (v) That so far as, prayer Clause 21(A) is concerned, he does not press the same being a minor penalty inflicted upon him, but so far as Prayer Clause 21(B) for regularization of suspension period is concerned, he is pressing this petition. (vi) That in the instant case, the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 31.05.1995, but prior to that on 15.11.1994, the petitioner was placed under suspension. (vii) That the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence on 27.07.1995, but thereafter, the respondent took four years period to appoint Inquiry Officer as Inquiry Officer was appointed on 4.11.1999. It is submitted that thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12th of January 2000 and order inflicting punishment by disciplinary authority came to be passed on 23rd August 2002. Thus, the department proceedings continued for a period of 7 years. In this context, learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the respondent should have completed department inquiry within four months as required by Circular dated 11.01.1979, but in the instant case, considerable long period was taken by the respondent to conclude the departmental proceedings and inflict the punishment. Thus, the department proceedings continued for a period of 7 years. In this context, learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the respondent should have completed department inquiry within four months as required by Circular dated 11.01.1979, but in the instant case, considerable long period was taken by the respondent to conclude the departmental proceedings and inflict the punishment. The learned advocate for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner made representation before the respondents to revoke suspension order as departmental proceedings were prolonged, but instead of considering his representation, the same was rejected and that is why the petitioner had to prefer Special Civil Application No. 15358 of 2006, challenging the order dated 24.01.2005, by which suspension period was not regularised. (viii) That, despite representations made by the petitioner, the respondent neither revoked the suspension order nor regularised the said period though minor penalty was imposed upon him. 4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent-State while opposing present petition made following submissions:- (i) That the order passed by the respondent inflicting penalty of stoppage of one increment without future effect is passed in accordance with law, there is no infirmity with the said order and the petitioner has been given reasonable opportunity to put forward his case. (ii) That so far any prayer with regard to regularisation of suspension period is concerned the State Government has already considered the prayer made by the petitioner and the said prayer was rejected by order dated 24.01.2005 (Annexure-F). 5. Regard being had to the above submissions and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it appears that petitioner had earlier filed Special Civil Application No. 15358 of 2006 challenging the order dated 24.01.2005 by which the period spent by the petitioner under suspension is not regularised. The said petition came to be rejected vide order dated 28.07.2006 by this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J) the said order is reproduced herein below:- "1. In the present petition, the petitioner has challenged an order dated 24-1-2005 by which the period spent by the petitioner under suspension is not regularised. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 14-11-1994. The charge-sheet came to be issued against the petitioner on 31-5-1995. A departmental inquiry was conducted and ultimately by an order 23-8-2002, a penalty of withholding of one increment without future effect was imposed on the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was placed under suspension by order dated 14-11-1994. The charge-sheet came to be issued against the petitioner on 31-5-1995. A departmental inquiry was conducted and ultimately by an order 23-8-2002, a penalty of withholding of one increment without future effect was imposed on the petitioner. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the question of treating the suspension period of the petitioner arose. The petitioner was suspended from 15-7-1994 to 19-5-2002. The authorities by the impugned order dated 24-1-2005 refused to regularise the said period. The petitioner made representation for reconsideration of this decision which also came to be rejected by a communication dated 16-2-2006. The petitioner has therefore, filed this petition. 3. It is not in dispute that so far at-least the order of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority has not been challenged by the petitioner. It would therefore, appear that the departmental inquiry for which the petitioner was placed under suspension has not resulted in his exoneration. In that view of the matter, I do not find that authority committed any error in refusing to regularise the suspension period for all purposes. 4. Two questions may however, remain outstanding. Ultimately, if the petitioner takes legal recourse and succeeds in having the order of penalty set aside, the period of suspension shall have to be reconsidered on the basis of such further developments. 4.1 The petitioner has voiced apprehension that by virtue of the impugned order, the pension of the petitioner will adversely suffer. Prima facie, I do not find that by virtue of the said order, the petitioner's pensionable service could be diminished. However, if at any stage the respondents interpret and implement the impugned decision in a manner which will reduce the pensionable service of the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge such an action of the respondents and incidentally also revive his challenge to the manner in which his suspension period has been treated by the Government. 5. Subject to above observations, the petition is rejected." In view of the aforesaid order it becomes clear that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.01.2005 whereby suspension period was not regularised is already dismissed on merit in that petition also the petitioner made it clear that he does not press the order inflicting punishment. 5. Subject to above observations, the petition is rejected." In view of the aforesaid order it becomes clear that the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 24.01.2005 whereby suspension period was not regularised is already dismissed on merit in that petition also the petitioner made it clear that he does not press the order inflicting punishment. It appears that prayer for regularisation of suspension period was rejected mainly on the ground that petitioner was not completely exonerated and therefore suspension period cannot be regularised. But in the said order, it has been observed in Para 4.1. is as under:- "4.1 The petitioner has voiced apprehension that by virtue of the impugned order, the pension of the petitioner will adversely suffer. Prima facie, I do not find that by virtue of the said order, the petitioner's pensionable service could be diminished. However, if at any stage the respondents interpret and implement the impugned decision in a manner which will reduce the pensionable service of the petitioner, it will be open for the petitioner to challenge such an action of the respondents and incidentally also revive his challenge to the manner in which his suspension period has been treated by the Government." In light of above observation the petitioner has filed present petition challenging the order of punishment as well as order dated 24.01.2005, whereby the period of suspension was not regularised. At the time of hearing learned advocate for the petitioner made it clear that he does not press the challenge with respect to punishment order but manner in which inquiry was prolonged and suspension period was treated is against the settled principle of law. Now in this context while analysing the facts of the case, it appears that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 31.05.1995 and prior to that, he was placed under suspension from 15.11.1994. It is pertinent to note that the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 4.11.1999 i.e. almost after four years. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 12.01.2000 within two months from the date of initiation of inquiry, and thereafter petitioner submitted reply on 03.04.2000 to the second show cause notice, and thereafter the final order inflicting punishment was passed on 23rd August 2002 after almost two and half years from the date of submission of the representation by the petitioner. Thus, it appears that the inquiry proceedings initiated in May 1995 were concluded on 23rd August 2002, when final order of punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The respondent took about 7 years to conclude the said inquiry. The petitioner made representation to the respondent to revoke the suspension as the departmental proceedings were prolonged. 6. It appears that General Administration Department, Government of Gujarat vide its Resolution, dated 11th January 1979, instructed to all the concerned departments to complete the departmental inquiries within four months in case of employees, who are under suspension. In the instant case, the petitioner was suspended on 15.11.1994 and the said suspension period was continued upto 19.05.2002. The petitioner was kept under suspension for a period of 7 years. Thus, it appears that the instructions issued by the General Administration Department vide its Circular dated 11th January 1979 have not been followed in the instant case. It also appears that in view of Rule 70(2) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Joining time Foreign Service, Deputation out of India, Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 2002, the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. The Rule 70(2) provides as under:- "Where the authority mentioned in sub-rule (1) is of the opinion that the Government employee has been fully exonerated or in the case of the suspension that it was wholly unjustified; the Government employee shall be given the full pay and allowances to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed, removed or suspended as the case may be." 7. Moreover, the representation made by the petitioner for regularization of his suspension period has been rejected by the respondent by its order dated 24.01.2005. It further appears that after rejection of the said prayer, the petitioner made representation dated 2nd January, 2006 to reconsider the said request, but the said representation also came to be rejected by the respondent vide communication dated 16.02.2006. On perusal of the order dated 24.01.2005 as well as the communication dated 16.02.2006, it appears that same are passed without taking into consideration the aforesaid Rule and Government Circular dated 11.01.1979, and therefore, the impugned decision of the respondent deserves to be set aside. 8. On perusal of the order dated 24.01.2005 as well as the communication dated 16.02.2006, it appears that same are passed without taking into consideration the aforesaid Rule and Government Circular dated 11.01.1979, and therefore, the impugned decision of the respondent deserves to be set aside. 8. Under the circumstances, the order dated 29th January 2005 as well as the communication dated 16.02.2006 are ordered to be set aside and the respondent-authority is hereby directed to regularise the suspension period, pay the differential amount of the suspension period within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. 9. With aforesaid directions, the present petition stands allowed accordingly. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Allowed