JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. S.J. Gaekwad for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms. Amita Shah for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. The undisputed fact between the parties can be summarised as under:- 2.1 The petitioner was working as a Sr. Town Planner and In-charge Chief Architect & Town Planner in the office of Chief Architect & Town Planner in the Roads and Building Department, Government of Gujarat at Gandhinagar. Since there is combined charge-sheet against other Officers under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act', for short) their names and details are material. Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel was working as Assistant Town Planner whereas Kanubhai Jayantilal Gajjar was working as Surveyor in the same office with the petitioner. On 27.11.2003, one Vikrambhai Shantilal Chauhan, Consulting Civil Engineer submitted two applications along with proposed plans and necessary papers in the office of the petitioner for obtaining completion/occupancy certificate in respect of construction made on plots Nos. 776 and 777 situated in Sector 21, at Gandhinagar. However, those two plots were confiscated by the Government for breach of conditions of allotment orders and therefore, said Vikrambhai Chauhan was not entitled to certificate in respect of construction made on said two plots. It is contended by the petitioner that under the circumstances, when office of the petitioner has scrutinized the applications and when it was clear that no certificate can be issued, said Vikrambhai Chauhan had in order to bring the pressure on the petitioner and other officers filed one false complaint in ACB office alleging that petitioner and his subordinate officers, namely, Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel and Kanubhai Jayantilal Gajjar had demanded Rs. 30,000/- each by way of illegal gratification for clearing the pending files for issuance of occupancy certificate. 2.2 Pursuant to such complaint, on 8.12.2003, a trap was arranged by the ACB staff and as alleged, during such investigation, an amount of Rs. 90,000/- was recovered from Surveyor Kanubhai Jayantilal Gajjar. However, it was never the case of the ACB that any amount was ever recovered from the petitioner. Since no amount was recovered from the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, which can be considered as an amount of bribe accepted by the petitioner as illegal gratification. 2.3 Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the ACB case and was prosecuted unnecessarily along with Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel, Asstt. Since no amount was recovered from the petitioner in any manner whatsoever, which can be considered as an amount of bribe accepted by the petitioner as illegal gratification. 2.3 Therefore, it is contended by the petitioner that he was falsely implicated in the ACB case and was prosecuted unnecessarily along with Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel, Asstt. Town Planner and Mr. Kanubhai Jayantilal Gajjar, Surveyor for the offence punishable u/ss. 7, 13(ii) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Irrespective of such allegations and exercise, the ultimate result of the criminal trial before the Special Judge (ACB), Gandhinagar results into acquittal of the present petitioner so also Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel, Asstt. Town Planner though the same Court has convicted the Surveyor Mr. Kanubhai Jayantilal Gajjar for the charges levelled against him as aforesaid by its judgment dated 19.7.2006. 2.4 Pursuant to such acquittal of the petitioner and Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel, the State Government has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 2027 of 2006 before this Court and as it is disclosed, such appeal is pending for hearing since last 10 years. However, unless there is a specific order in such appeal, the fact remains that there is a judgment in favour of the petitioner, acquitting from the criminal charges and it is submitted that there was no evidence to implicate the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence under the Act. 2.5 However, while deciding such Criminal Appeal, the Special Judge (ACB), Gandhinagar was pleased to direct the Government to initiate departmental action for major penalty against the petitioner and Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel for their negligency and irresponsibility if any proved during such proceedings. Pursuant to such observation by the ACB Court, the respondents have initiated Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner and Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel for alleged charges of corruption and negligence in performance of their official duties. During such exercise on 5.4.2007, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner along with the statement of imputations and list of documentary evidence so also list of witnesses. During the departmental inquiry, the presenting Officer of the department had examined other witnesses, however, witnesses did not support the case of the department and thereby, there was absolutely no evidence before the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. During the departmental inquiry, the presenting Officer of the department had examined other witnesses, however, witnesses did not support the case of the department and thereby, there was absolutely no evidence before the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, by its order and report dated 22.10.2007, the Inquiry Officer has concluded that the charge regarding negligence in performance of the duty has been established whereas the charge regarding the demand of illegal gratification was not proved and established against the petitioner. However, the disciplinary authority deferred with the report of the Inquiry Officer and recorded tentative finding that both the charges levelled against the petitioner were established and proved. It is submitted that such finding should be based on evidence led during the course of inquiry by the Presenting Officer and not on any other material or information, which was otherwise not adjudicated before the Inquiry Officer and for which reasonable opportunity was not offered to the petitioner to negativate such charges. Therefore, it is averred by the petitioner that the disciplinary authority was not justified in reversing the finding of the Inquiry Officer in respect of the charge related to the demand of illegal gratification from the complainant Vikrambhai Chauhan, more particularly in absence of any evidence to that effect and finding of acquittal recorded by the Special Judge in ACB Case and thereby, such finding by the Disciplinary Authority was contrary to the findings recorded by the Special Judge in ACB Case and evidence produced both before the criminal Court so also before the Inquiry Officer. 2.6 Pursuant to such tentative finding by Disciplinary Authority, an advice was sought for from Gujarat Public Service Commission in respect of quantum of punishment and pursuant to its communication dated 19.3.2008, by its final order dated 4.9.2009, the Disciplinary Authorities imposed penalty of reversion from the post of Sr. Town Planner to Dy. Town Planner with immediate effect. Thereby, such penalty was more severe than the penalty of reversion of three increments for the period of two years without future effect as proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, no opportunity was ever given to the petitioner to make effective representation against the proposed penalty as per the advice and suggestion of GPSC. Town Planner with immediate effect. Thereby, such penalty was more severe than the penalty of reversion of three increments for the period of two years without future effect as proposed by the Disciplinary Authority. However, no opportunity was ever given to the petitioner to make effective representation against the proposed penalty as per the advice and suggestion of GPSC. Therefore, according to the petitioner, such act of the respondents amount to violation of principle of natural justice and contrary to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 2.7 In view of above background and details, the petitioner has challenged the validity of impugned order dated 4.9.2009, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A, whereby, penalty or punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Senior Town Planner to the post of Deputy Town Planner has been awarded to the petitioner with immediate effect. 3. Therefore, petitioner is seeking indulgence of this Court under Articles 14, 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India r/w. Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 and Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 to quash and set-aside the impugned order or penalty dated 4.9.2009. The petitioner has presented this petition before the Court on 8.1.2010, but ultimately, on 2.3.2010, the Co-ordinate Bench has while issuing rule passed the following order:- "Rule. Expedited. The respondents shall file reply within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. It is made clear that if the reply is not filed, and in any case if the final decision is adverse to the respondents, then the loss if any occurring to the respondents shall be recovered from the officer in-charge at the relevant time who has failed to file reply. It shall be open to the petitioner to move for early hearing after reply is filed." 4. Therefore, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply on 15.6.2010. 5. It shall be open to the petitioner to move for early hearing after reply is filed." 4. Therefore, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply on 15.6.2010. 5. In support of his petition, petitioner has filed in addition to copy of impugned order at Annexure-A, copy of the judgment and order dated 19.7.2006 by Special Judge (ACB), Gandhinagar in ACB Case No. 2 of 2004 at Annexure-B; copy of charge-sheet dated 5.4.2007 in Departmental Inquiry by respondents at Annexure-C; written statements of defence by the petitioner dated 13.6.2007 and 18.9.2007 at Annexure-D and Annexure-E; copies of depositions of witnesses, who were examined in departmental proceedings collectively at Annexure-F; copy of report dated 22.10.2007 of the Inquiry Officer at Annexure-G; copy of communication to the petitioner regarding tentative findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority at Annexure-H and copy of further written statement dated 5.2.2009 at Annexure-I. 6. Therefore, the sum and substance of the petition is to the effect that when petitioner has been acquitted by the criminal Court, after full-fledged trial, which was conducted after investigation by ACB and when there is no evidence against the petitioner and thereby, when real culprit was already convicted by the criminal Court acquitting the present petitioner and thereafter, even during departmental inquiry, when there is no evidence whatsoever against the present petitioner to prove that he was involved in corruption in any manner whatsoever and thereby, when even Inquiry Officer has held that charges of corruption is not proved, the action of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing major punishment to the petitioner is unwarranted, illegal and arbitrary. In support of such submission, petitioner is mainly relying upon the judgment of criminal case so also depositions recorded during departmental inquiry. 7. Before scrutinizing those evidence, if we peruse the defence version in the form of affidavit in reply by respondent No. 2, it becomes clear that probably respondents have not bothered to apply their mind and to disclose proper facts on record because though there is a specific order of admitting the petition on 2.3.2010, with a direction to expedite the hearing of such petition with an observation that if final decision is in favour of the petitioner, then, loss, if any, cause to the petitioner, shall be recovered from the officer in-charge at the relevant time. While filing the affidavit in reply, it is contended that the present affidavit in reply is filed only with a view to oppose the admission of the present petition and granting of any interim relief in favour of the petitioner seeking liberty to file a detailed affidavit as and when necessary. However, the fact remains that thereafter, till date, no further affidavit or findings is placed on record in support of defence version, if at all there is any substance in such defence. Whereas, while challenging the contents of prayer in the petition, it is averred in such affidavit that the impugned order is just and proper and it cannot be said to be disproportionated, looking to the charges levelled against the petitioner, which were proved in the departmental inquiry. Though it is to be recollected here that practically, there is no evidence proving any of the charges either before the criminal Court in full-fledged criminal trial or even departmental inquiry, since the entire bunch of evidence is produced on record and it would be disclosed and discussed herein after that what witnesses have stated and how it cannot be considered as evidence, which proves the commission of charges. Surprisingly, though there is no evidence either before the criminal Court or before the departmental inquiry and practically, though it was not the case throughout the investigation and inquiry that petitioner has ever accepted the amount of bribe directly from the complainant, the deponent of the affidavit has audacity to say on oath before this Court, which is totally against the facts available on record in black and white that the petitioner was found taking bribe of Rs. 90,000/- and therefore, punishment is implicated upon him and hence, it cannot be said to be disproportionate. Though it can be considered as a typographical error, probably there is improper date disclosed in the text thereafter while reproducing factual history, which is narrated herein above and therefore, it is not reproduced again. However, this was the sum and substance of evidence version and there is no other material on record except what is listed herein above. 8. In view of such fact, if we now peruse the documents produced by the petitioner on record, it becomes clear that while deciding the Special Case (ACB) No. 2 of 2004, Special Judge (ACB), Gandhinagar has considered all oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. 8. In view of such fact, if we now peruse the documents produced by the petitioner on record, it becomes clear that while deciding the Special Case (ACB) No. 2 of 2004, Special Judge (ACB), Gandhinagar has considered all oral and documentary evidence adduced before it. Before the ACB Court, as many as 7 witnesses were examined and as many as 64 documentary evidences were produced to prove the guilt of all the accused before it. However, in a detailed reasoned judgment of 43 pages, the Special Judge of ACB could not find a reason to convict the present petitioner so also Mrs. Ramilaben Patel, Court has convicted the Surveyor Kanubhai Jayantilal Gajjar. Therefore, there is a reason to believe that if there is even a single iota of evidence against the present petitioner, so also the co-accused Mrs. Ramilaben Vinodkumar Patel, then, ACBV Court would have certainly convicted them. Though Criminal Appeal against such acquittal is pending before the competent Court, it cannot be ignored that in ACB Case, the complainant has in categorical terms alleged in the against Kanubhai Gajjar and not against the present petitioner and he also admits that in fact he was angry because permission to some other builders were issued and if the permission was issued in his favour, he would not have filed the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is certainly based upon need of the complainant to get the occupancy certificate. However, at present, when criminal appeal is pending against such judgment, except considering that it is a clear judgment of acquittal of present petitioner wherein they are exonerated from the charges levelled against them and therefore, now, in absence of any evidence regarding demand, acceptance and possession of bribe amount, it would be difficult to hold in any proceedings that petitioner has involved himself in any such offence. However, the ACB Court has while acquitting the petitioner, directed the Government to initiate the departmental action for major penalty against the petitioner for his negligence and irresponsible attitude. Therefore, prima facie, it becomes clear that now departmental inquiry is to be restricted to verify that whether petitioner is negligent in performing his duty or whether his attitude is irresponsible and it cannot be widened to decide the against the charges of corruption, which was taken care by the criminal Court wherein the petitioner was acquitted. Therefore, prima facie, it becomes clear that now departmental inquiry is to be restricted to verify that whether petitioner is negligent in performing his duty or whether his attitude is irresponsible and it cannot be widened to decide the against the charges of corruption, which was taken care by the criminal Court wherein the petitioner was acquitted. However, charges levelled during departmental/proceedings includes, the charges of corruption, which is otherwise unwarranted and certainly out of the scope of the departmental inquiry when those are not proved before the criminal Court and when criminal Court has never directed the department to initiate departmental inquiry for the charges of corruption also. To that extent, the initiation of departmental inquiry itself is improper and needs to be disturbed. 9. The defence version of the petitioner before the departmental inquiry is in detail, but at present, we are concerned with the evidence rather than the defence alone. Therefore, if we turn to the relevant evidence before the Inquiry Officer in departmental inquiry again it becomes clear that though department has examined every witnesses, none of the witness has deposed against the petitioner so as to prove demand, acceptance and possession of currency notes as illegal gratification or even any act, which can be considered as negligence or irresponsible attitude by the petitioner in any manner whatsoever. 10. Amongst all the witnesses, the deposition of complainant before ACB case who is consulting Civil Engineer namely; Vikram S. Chauhan is material. Though he is admitting that he has lodged a complaint on 16.1.2004, during cross examination before Inquiry Officer, he categorically states that there was no demand by the petitioner when he met the petitioner on 6.12.2003 and that he has never offered any amount to the petitioner on the date of trap i.e. 8.12.2003 and more precisely he categorically denies that there was delay caused by the petitioner in issuing any certificate to him in any manner whatsoever. He further categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that he was never been harassed by the petitioner for his work throughout his service tenure in the office. He further categorically stated before the Inquiry Officer that he was never been harassed by the petitioner for his work throughout his service tenure in the office. When complainant has otherwise alleged about the demand of bribe he has categorically stated both before the Criminal Court as well as before the Inquiry Officer that there was no demand whatsoever by the present petitioner, there is no reason for either of the authority to hold that petitioner has demanded bribe and thereby to punish him. Such decision is taken in acquitting the petitioner but unfortunately when Special Judge of ACB has directed the department to initiate Departmental Inquiry for negligence and irresponsible attitude, now, there is necessity to have cogent and reliable or at-least prima facie evidence because now it is during Departmental Inquiry only, to prove that petitioner was negligent or irresponsible in some manner. Therefore, when petitioner has categorically asked question to the complainant that whether there was any delay in processing his file or whether he was ever harassed by the petitioner during his work with the office, the witness has categorically denied to have come across any negligence or delay on the part of the petitioner or any harassment by the petitioner. If the complainant states so before the Inquiry Officer then there is no reason either for the Inquiry Officer or for the disciplinary authority to hold that petitioner was either negligent or having irresponsible attitude so as to impose penalty as per impugned order. It cannot be ignored that the witness i.e. original complainant namely; Vikram S. Chauhan was allowed to be further examined by the presenting officer when Inquiry Officer has offered him a chance but Inquiry Officer has confirmed that he does not want to lead any further evidence and, therefore it can never be said that presenting officer or the complainant was not given proper chance or opportunity to prove their case. Therefore, impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside by all means. This is not only deposition before the Inquiry Officer which confirms that petitioner was not at fault in any manner whatsoever but other witnesses namely; Nilesh Vrajlal Vaghasiya has also categorically denied the allegations against the petitioner. Therefore, impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside by all means. This is not only deposition before the Inquiry Officer which confirms that petitioner was not at fault in any manner whatsoever but other witnesses namely; Nilesh Vrajlal Vaghasiya has also categorically denied the allegations against the petitioner. The witness has categorically denied stating that he had never seen or heard the demand by the petitioner and that he had never seen the petitioner accepting the amount of bribe. Similar is the deposition by witnesses namely; Ms. Ushaben R. Macwan and Ms. Kashiben A. Solanki, women Police Constables confirming that there was no demand or acceptance of bribe in any manner by the present petitioner which confirms that even there was no recovery of any amount of bribe from the petitioner. Similar is the situation with the witness Devendra Dhirajalal Raval being panch witness of the trap who also confirms that there was no evidence regarding demand or acceptance of bribe amount by the petitioner. On the contrary, all such witnesses are also confirming that there was no demand or acceptance even by Dipak H. Mevada but at present we are not concerned with the evidence against other persons. 11. Therefore, when before both the authorities i.e. ACB Court and the Inquiry Officer in Departmental Inquiry, there is no evidence regarding acceptance or possession of tainted currency notes, it is surprising to note that how disciplinary authority has, which has to rely upon the evidence during the inquiry, came to the conclusion that charge regarding corruption is also proved during Departmental Inquiry. Therefore, though Criminal Appeal against judgment of acquittal is pending so far as evidence of Departmental Inquiry is concerned, when relevant record is placed before the Court and when respondents have not come forward with a case that such record is not proper and, thereby when there is no evidence during Departmental Inquiry that there was demand, existence and possession of notes with the petitioner, I have no option but to consider that there is no evidence against the petitioner to prove the charges of corruption and, therefore, the action of the respondents in punishing the petitioner for such charges is certainly illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted and against the principle of natural justice and, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside. It is surprising to note that even in inquiry report dated 22.10.2007, the Inquiry Officer has also, in paragraph 6.1 with reference to issue No. 2 regarding charge for corruption, categorically held that such issue is not proved. For such conclusion and decision, Inquiry Officer has relied upon the evidence before him so also the judgment of ACB case. Thereafter, surprisingly, the disciplinary authority has only because of the direction by the ACB Court to initiate Departmental Inquiry against the petitioner and because of few lines or comments in ACB case by Special Judge of ACB came to the conclusion that when Special Judge of ACB has observed or commented something, it is held that charge of corruption is also proved. However, disciplinary authority has failed to realize that Special Judge, ACB has stated nothing about basic requirement to prove the charges of corruption namely; demand, acceptance and possession of tainted currency notes by the petitioner but it is only observed that when Officer under the petitioner has accepted the bribe, his conduct is suspicious and needs to be scrutinized by the department in Departmental Inquiry. However, such observation cannot be considered as an evidence to confirm the charges of corruption which otherwise requires cogent and reliable evidence and mere presumption is not sufficient and enough to hold anybody guilty of conviction and then to punish him more particularly, when there is no evidence whatsoever to confirm that there was demand, acceptance or possession of currency notes at the relevant time by such person being present petitioner. To that extent, the decision of disciplinary authority is also unwarranted and needs to be quashed and set aside since it is without evidence on record. If we peruse such order of the disciplinary authority, it becomes clear that disciplinary authority has mainly relied upon the fact that the acquittal appeal is pending before the High Court and that petitioner was present in the office on relevant date. However, such fact cannot be considered as a conclusive evidence to prove the offence of corruption and, therefore, by all means irrespective of pendency of criminal appeal, at present, the decision of disciplinary authority which is otherwise also against the determination and decision by the Inquiry Officer to hold that petitioner is involved in corruption also, is certainly unwarranted and illegal. 12. 12. So far as charges regarding negligence and irresponsible attitude is concerned, practically, there is no evidence on record before the Inquiry Officer that what are the duties and responsibilities of the petitioner in such cases and what would amount to negligence or irresponsible attitude by the petitioner. Therefore, only because some lower officer in the office was involved in the corruption case, it cannot be said that petitioner was negligent or having irresponsible attitude. Therefore also, such charges are not relevant and when it is not proved, the order of punishment based upon such charges also needs to be held as illegal, unjust, unwarranted, arbitrary and, therefore, needs to be quashed and set aside. 13. In support of his case, learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the case of Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1999 (7) SCC 739 wherein with reference to Departmental Inquiry and inquiry report, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that requirement of affording opportunity of being heard as laid in Kunj Bihari Misra case (Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra reported in 1998 (7) SCC 84 ) being in consonance with Article 311(2) and being a constitutional right to be heard, has to be read into a rule which does not makes specific provision to this effect. It is further held that when there is no cogent and reliable evidence on record of the Departmental Inquiry, its decision to punish the delinquent would be considered as perverse based on unreasonable condition. It is specifically observed and held that High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court has got jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 32 respectively to set aside the decision of disciplinary committee when it is found to be based upon conjectures and surmises which is done in the present case also. 14. The above discussion categorically confirms that a disciplinary authority has gone by surmises and conjectures, rather than by evidence on record. Thereby, statement of witnesses have not been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority and it has relied upon their own wisdom only against the petitioner. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is to be held that disciplinary authority is certainly in error in disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer so far as charges for corruption is concerned. 15. Therefore, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is to be held that disciplinary authority is certainly in error in disagreeing with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer so far as charges for corruption is concerned. 15. It cannot be ignored that in such reported case, the issue was similar however though charges of corruption was not proved in criminal case, the department has considered as it is proved during Departmental Inquiry and punished the delinquent. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court has allowed the appeal of the delinquent by quashing and setting aside the order of dismissal of the delinquent with a direction that the appellant shall be reinstated in services forthwith with all the consequential benefits including all arrears of pay. 16. Reference to the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat reported in 2013 (4) SCC 301 is also material wherein while dealing with almost similar situation when there was allegation that husband of the delinquent was collecting bribe on her behalf; in absence of any such evidence, when department has dismissed the delinquent officer, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that order of punishment imposed by the department is unjust, unwarranted and, thereby set aside the same and when delinquent had reached the age of superannuation besides being exonerated honorably granted costs quantified as Rs. 5 lakh as compensation. The judgment is quite in detail after discussing several other judgments on similar issues right from the year 1985 till the year 2013 and then it is concluded that the conclusion in Departmental Inquiry must be Vs. reached on the basis of what a prudent man ought Vs. to have done and even for allegation of Vs. misconduct, there must be evidence on record. Vs. With reference to the burden and onus of proof in Vs. Departmental Inquiry and inquiry proceeding, the Vs. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically confirmed Vs. that such burden of proof lay on the department Vs. and thereby shifting onus of proof on the Vs. delinquent in inquiry is not permissible. 17. misconduct, there must be evidence on record. Vs. With reference to the burden and onus of proof in Vs. Departmental Inquiry and inquiry proceeding, the Vs. Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically confirmed Vs. that such burden of proof lay on the department Vs. and thereby shifting onus of proof on the Vs. delinquent in inquiry is not permissible. 17. Therefore, now, it is quite clear and obvious that it is the duty of the department to prove each and every allegation either during criminal trial or even during Departmental Inquiry and if there is no evidence to prove any of the allegations, then, it is not permissible to punish any such person only based upon the allegations in the complaint which is not supported during trial or based upon surmises and conjectures that when somebody is present in the office how there can be a case of trap. 18. Therefore, in absence of any other findings, there is no reason but to allow this petition. 19. However, it is made clear that observation and discussion made herein above is purely with reference to this case which otherwise also needs to be expedited and which is pending since last six years and when it is listed for final hearing before this Court. Therefore, concerned Criminal Court can certainly decide the acquittal appeal in accordance with evidence and applicable law without being influenced by the discussion herein above. 20. However, in view of above facts and circumstances, there is no option but to allow this petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order. Therefore, the petition is allowed. Thereby, the order dated 4.9.2009 at Annexure `A' inflicting the punishment of reduction in rank from the post of Senior Town Planner to the post of Deputy Town Planner with immediate effect is hereby quashed and set aside. Thereby, if such order is executed by the respondents then respondents shall now consider the petitioner on services during his service tenure on the post of Senior Town Planner from the date of execution of such impugned order till the date of his superannuation, since now he has retired; and to release all the consequential financial benefits as if he was not punished or his rank was not reduced as per impugned order. Respondents shall also refix the pension and all other retiral benefits accordingly. 21. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Respondents shall also refix the pension and all other retiral benefits accordingly. 21. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct Service is permitted.