JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of removal passed by the respondent-Gujarat Housing Board(respondent-Board) as well the inquiry report dated 21.01.2004. 2. The petitioner, in the captioned writ petition has initially challenged the show-cause notice dated 05.02.2004 issued by the Housing Commissioner. This Court vide interim order dated 24.02.2004 granted the stay against further inquiry. However, it appears that the same was modified vide order dated 16.12.2004 and the respondent-Board was directed to proceed with the departmental inquiry. After the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted his reply dated 30.12.2004 to the show-cause notice dated 05.02.2004. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from the service, which was placed on record by way of Civil Application No.5290 of 2005. By the order dated 20.07.2005, this Court disposed of the Civil Application No.5290 of 2005 by issuing direction restraining the respondents from implementing the decision of removal and further it was ordered to pay provisional pension. Thereafter, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation on 30.07.2005. Thus, throughout the proceedings, the impugned order of removal has remained stayed. 3. The brief facts of the case are as under : 3.1 The petitioner was serving as a Deputy Executive Engineer from the year 1983 to 1987 and he was in-charge of Housing Sub-Division at Nadidad. On 09.07.1992, the Block No.6 of flats of group of the aforesaid Housing Division collapsed. The respondent-Board issued a chargesheet to the petitioner dated 12.01.1995 for the alleged irregularities, which are said to have came to the notice of the authorities of the respondent-Board pursuant to the collapse of one Block of flats at Kapadvanj. The petitioner denied the charges and thereafter, he was subjected to detailed departmental inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 21.01.2004 holding the charges proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued on 05.02.2004, which was challenged by him in the captioned writ petition as referred hereinabove. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry officer has acted in a biased manner and hence, the entire departmental proceedings are required to be set aside. Thereafter, the show-cause notice was issued on 05.02.2004, which was challenged by him in the captioned writ petition as referred hereinabove. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Joshi for learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry officer has acted in a biased manner and hence, the entire departmental proceedings are required to be set aside. 4.1 He has invited attention of this Court to the observations made by the inquiry officer in his report and has submitted that the defence witnesses who were produced by the petitioner in the proceedings, their evidence/deposition was totally ignored on the ground that they have supported the case of the petitioner. 4.2 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has further submitted that the State Government had entrusted the inspection to one consulting engineer namely, M/s.Khambhati & Associates, who prepared a report on 27.04.1994, which was in favour of the petitioner, is totally ignored by the inquiry officer. He has submitted that though the detailed report was available, the same was not produced by the respondent-Board and despite the request of the petitioner, such report of M/s.Khambhati & Associates was not produced and ultimately, the same was produced by the petitioner. He has submitted that the aforesaid report is totally ignored, which he had produced in his defence before the inquiry officer and inquiry officer had relied upon the report of Quality Control and Inspection Unit dated 20.06.1993, which shows bias against the petitioner. 4.3 He has further submitted that a close scrutiny of the report dated 27.04.1994 reveals that the petitioner cannot be faulted with the weak construction of the flats, which had collapsed. He has submitted that the report mainly shows that there was spurious cement used in the construction and the petitioner, at the relevant time, had also invited attention of such cement to the concerned authorities. However, such request as well as the report prepared, at the relevant time of spurious cement was ignored and inquiry officer has not appreciated the contention of the petitioner in this regard. 4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that there were various persons, who were engaged in the construction activities such as Superintendent Engineer - Mr. K.N. Modi, Executive Engineer – Mr. M.K. Narsinghani and Assistant Engineer -Mr. Rashmibhai B. Soni and other officers. 4.4 Learned advocate Mr. Joshi has submitted that there were various persons, who were engaged in the construction activities such as Superintendent Engineer - Mr. K.N. Modi, Executive Engineer – Mr. M.K. Narsinghani and Assistant Engineer -Mr. Rashmibhai B. Soni and other officers. However, no action is taken against them though, they were also directly concerned with the construction of the Housing Sub-Division. It is further submitted that the entire building is collapsed due to fault in structural design and due to the load, which had accrued due to construction of water tank above and some Block tenants/occupants have made alterations in such flats and thus, the building had collapsed. He has submitted that such defence was taken by the petitioner in inquiry and the inquiry officer proceeded with the closed mind in order to see that the petitioner is removed from service. 4.5 In support of his submissions, learned advocate has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P and Ors. Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, 2010(2) SCC 772 . He has submitted that the inquiry officer must be wholly unbiased and examine the evidence presented by both the sides. It is submitted by him that the inquiry officer is acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in position of an independent adjudicator and cannot represent himself as a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. It is submitted that in the present case, the inquiry officer has totally ignored the defence of the petitioner as well as his defence witnesses only on the ground that they have deposed in favour of the petitioner. Hence, their evidence is required to be discarded. 4.6 Lastly, it is submitted that the impugned order of removal is required to be quashed and set aside on the ground of delay. He has submitted that the Block had collapsed on 09.07.1992 and thereafter, the report for the said incident was submitted in the year 1993-94 and the chargesheet was issued on 12.01.1995. The first inquiry officer Mr. V.V. Parekh was appointed to initiate the inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the second inquiry officer Mr. K.S. Raval was appointed on 02.02.1997, thereafter, third inquiry officer Mr. Girish Mehta was appointed on 03.11.1998 and lastly, Mr. C.R. Desai was appointed on 04.12.2000, who has submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty after four(4) years i.e. on 21.01.2004. V.V. Parekh was appointed to initiate the inquiry proceedings. Thereafter, the second inquiry officer Mr. K.S. Raval was appointed on 02.02.1997, thereafter, third inquiry officer Mr. Girish Mehta was appointed on 03.11.1998 and lastly, Mr. C.R. Desai was appointed on 04.12.2000, who has submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty after four(4) years i.e. on 21.01.2004. 4.7 Learned advocate Mr.Joshi has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, 2018 (14) SCC 92 in support of his submissions and has submitted that the departmental proceedings are required to be set aside on the ground of delay. Similarly, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of the State of M.P. Vs. Bani Singh and another, AIR 1990 SC 1308 . Lastly, he has placed reliance on the judgement of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs. State of Gujarat, 2019(1) GLH 152 . Thus, he has submitted that the respondents may be directed to grant the final retiral benefits to the petitioner by quashing and setting aside the order of removal. 5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Renu Singh for the respondent-Board has submitted that the impugned order of removal does not need interference since the departmental proceedings are proceeded in accordance with law. She has submitted that the petitioner was given ample opportunities to put his defence and the inquiry officer, after placing reliance on the report of Quality Control and Inspection Unit of Roads and Building Department of the State Government dated 20.06.1993 and after examining the defence put forth by the petitioner has rightly concluded by holding the charges as proved. She has submitted that the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Executive Engineer was required to supervise the construction of the Housing Sub-Division. The petitioner has failed in his duties and used the spurious material in the construction of the Block, which had ultimately collapsed on 09.07.1992. She has submitted that the inquiry officer, after examining the reports of the laboratories and the concerned materials, which were used by the petitioner had found him guilty of such weak construction and hence, the penalty of removal is not required to be disturbed. 6. She has submitted that the inquiry officer, after examining the reports of the laboratories and the concerned materials, which were used by the petitioner had found him guilty of such weak construction and hence, the penalty of removal is not required to be disturbed. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties and the averments made in the petition. This Court has also perused the documents on record. 7. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer between year 1983 and 1987 and was in-charge of the Housing Subdivision at Nadiad. 8. The preliminary inspection report, which is at Annexure’R/4’ page No.212 of the writ petition reveals that there were various officers, who were also in-charge of the Housing Sub-Division being Mr. K.N. Modi, who was superintendent Engineer was also supervising the work and was present from beginning of the Housing construction work till the completion. Mr. M.K. Narsinghani, who was an Executive Engineer has worked from 01.03.1984 to 30.09.1984, Mr. K.J. Vaishnav-Executive Engineer worked from 01.10.1984 to 30.11.1985, Mr. P.G. Chhikniwala has served from 30.11.1985 to rest of the period, Executive Engineer Mr. P.L. Gadani who was in-charge from 15.01.1990, an Assistant Engineer-Mr. Rashmibhai B. Soni was appointed from very beginning of the Housing construction till the completion. Thus, the petitioner along with all these officers were supervising the construction at Hosing sub-division of which, one of the flats being Block No.6 collapsed. However, it is not in dispute that none of the officers as named herein above are subjected to any inquiry or departmental proceedings except the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot be singed out for imposing the punishment, when other officers were also involved. 9. It is not a disputed fact that the respondent-Board had appointed M/s.Khambhati & Associates to investigate the causes of the collapse of the part of Block No.6 and to suggest the remedial measures to be taken up for other Blocks of the scheme at Kapadvanj and to investigate the quality of construction work of the entire scheme including the collapsed block. M/s.Khambhati & Associates has submitted that their report on 27.04.1994 inter alia stating the causes of the collapse of the said Block No.6 and perusal of the said report reveals that the petitioner cannot be said to be held responsible at all for the collapse of the Block. The aforesaid report was not produced before the inquiry officer either by the presenting officer or also on request of the petitioner by the inquiry officer. The petitioner had produced the said report in support of his defence however, the inquiry officer had not taken it into consideration and has totally ignored the same. The inquiry officer was expected to act fairly and was under an obligation to peruse the report of M/s.Khambhati & Associates, which was appointed by the respondent-Board as a consulting engineer to investigate the causes of the collapse of building of Block No.6. However, the same is conveniently ignored by the inquiry officer and the report of Quality Control and Inspection Unit dated 20.06.1993 was considered and the same was relied upon in order to see that the charges are proved against the petitioner 10. The petitioner in his defence had cited two(2) defence witnesses one Shri Anadkat and D.V. Patel who were retired Executive Engineers. This Court has perused the proceedings, which were recorded by the inquiry officer in his report. A perusal of the said report would reveal that the defence witness Mr. D.V. Patel had deposed in favour of the petitioner and has specifically made the statement that the petitioner, who was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer cannot be held liable for the weak construction since the Executive Engineer, who had passed the design was responsible only for such faulty design due to which, building had collapsed. He has further deposed that the entire material as well as the quality of such materials was to be examined by the Executive Engineer and the petitioner cannot be held responsible for the same. It is distressing to note that the inquiry officer has discarded the statements of the defence witness Mr. D.V. Patel on the ground that his deposition is favouring the petitioner. Merely, because a defence witness deposes in favour of the delinquent, the inquiry officer cannot discard his statement. He is supposed to act fairly and give benefit of such statement to the delinquent unless the same is diluted in the cross-examination. D.V. Patel on the ground that his deposition is favouring the petitioner. Merely, because a defence witness deposes in favour of the delinquent, the inquiry officer cannot discard his statement. He is supposed to act fairly and give benefit of such statement to the delinquent unless the same is diluted in the cross-examination. Similarly, the statement of the another defence witness Mr. Anadkat has been discarded on the ground that the same does not reveal the details. Such approach of the inquiry officer is required to be deprecated as the inquiry officer has merely proceeded on the report of the Quality Control Inspection Unit. The inquiry officer has asked numerous questions to the defence witnesses, which were in fact answered in detail and the same is cursorily ignored by the presenting officer. No discussion is recorded on the deposition of the defence witnesses and it appears that the inquiry officer is prevailed upon by the Quality Control report and specifications tendered by the presenting officer. Similarly, in some of the answers given by the defence witness Mr. Anadkat, the inquiry officer has discarded the same in light of the deposition given by the witness on behalf of the respondent-Board. 11. A perusal of the proceedings of the inquiry officer further reveals that the petitioner had also at the relevant time sent the spurious cement, which was procured on 05.04.1984 for laboratory testing on 09.04.1985 to the District Laboratory of the Government and the report of the said test indicated that the cement was not of standard quality. However, the inquiry officer has discarded such report, which was obtained by the petitioner from the Government laboratory on the ground that the report has been issued after one year. The said fact is revealed from the deposition of witness Mr. J.H. Patel in his cross-examination, which was done on 27.02.1986. Thus, while conducting the proceedings the inquiry officer has failed in his duties and has acted in biased manner. 12. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Saroj Kumar Sinha(supra). The Apex Court, while examining the role of the inquiry officer in the departmental proceedings has observed thus : “28. An Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. The Apex Court, while examining the role of the inquiry officer in the departmental proceedings has observed thus : “28. An Enquiry officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a department enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The enquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 31. In the case of Shaughnessy v. United States, (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said: (L Ed petitioner. 969) "procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied." 32. 31. In the case of Shaughnessy v. United States, (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said: (L Ed petitioner. 969) "procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied." 32. The effect of non disclosure of relevant documents has been stated in Judicial Review of Administrative Action by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, Fifth Edition, Pg.442 as follows : "If relevant evidential material is not disclosed at all to a party who is potentially prejudiced by it, there is prima facie unfairness, irrespective of whether the material in question arose before, during or after the hearing. This proposition can be illustrated by a large number of modern cases involving the use of undisclosed reports by administrative tribunals and other adjudicating bodies. If the deciding body is or has the trappings of a judicial tribunal and receives or appears to receive evidence ex parte which is not fully disclosed, or holds ex parte inspections during the course or after the conclusion of the hearing, the case for setting the decision aside is obviously very strong; the maxim that justice must be seen to be done can readily be invoked." In our opinion the aforesaid maxim is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case.” 12.1 Thus, as per the law enunciated by the Apex Court, the inquiry officer while holding the departmental proceedings is acting as a Quasi Judicial authority and is in the position of independent adjudicator. He cannot be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. It is further observed that his function is to examine the evindence presented by the department in the proceedings and even in the absence of the delinquent officer. He has to see whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The Apex Court has strictly observed that the departmental inquiry, which is conducted against the Government servant cannot be treated as casual exercise and the inquiry proceedings cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased and such proceedings are to be held in such a manner to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased and such proceedings are to be held in such a manner to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. It is held that the Government servant is required to be treated fairly in such proceedings, which may culminate in imposition of punishment of dismissal or removal from the service. 13. In the instant case, the inquiry proceedings reveal that the same are conducted in the biased manner ignoring the defence of the petitioner in the form of report of M/s.Khambhati & Associates appointed by the respondent-Board and the statement of the defence witnesses cited by the petitioner. 14. The further contention raised by the petitioner that the inquiry proceedings are required to be quashed and set aside on the aspect of delay merits acceptance. It is not in dispute that the concerned Block collapsed on 09.07.1992 and inspection of the same was initiated on 22.07.1992 and first report of the Quality Control and Inspection Unit was submitted on 20.06.1993 and thereafter, the report of M/s.Khambhati & Associates was obtained on 27.04.1994 and the chargesheet was issued to the petitioner, after almost two(2) and half years i.e. on 12.01.1995. One Mr. V.V. Parekh was appointed to hold the inquiry. The inquiry was thereafter, conducted further by Mr. K.S. Raval, who was appointed on 02.07.1997 i.e. after a period of almost two(2) and half years. Again third inquiry officer was appointed namely Mr. Girish Mehta on 03.11.1988 after a period of one year and three months approximately. Finally, the inquiry was completed by Mr. C.R. Desai, who was appointed on 04.12.2000 and he submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty after four(4) years i.e. on 21.01.2004. In the entire proceedings, no satisfactory explanation is given for such delay, which has occurred, after the change of the inquiry officers intermittently. Significantly, no explanation is also tendered for submission of final report on 21.01.2004, after the last inquiry officer was appointed on 04.12.2000. 15. At this stage, the observations of Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank(supra) are required to be incorporated. The Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of delay of departmental inquiry has held thus : “We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement and order passed by the High Court. 15. At this stage, the observations of Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank(supra) are required to be incorporated. The Apex Court, while dealing with the issue of delay of departmental inquiry has held thus : “We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgement and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for under Section to highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course of submissions made by a counsel. The first issue of concern is the enormous delay of about 7 years in issuing a charge sheet against Shukla. There is no explanation for this unexplained delay. It appears that some internal discussions were going on within the Bank but that it took the Bank 7 years to make its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. In this ground itself, the charge sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance.” 15.1 The Apex Court set aside the chargesheet on the ground of unexplained delay of seven(7) years. 16. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel(supra), while examining the same issue has held thus : 5.5.1 It was held that protracted action against government employee would operate prejudicial to him and has to be avoided, “Under the circumstances, allowing the respondent to proceed further with the departmental proceedings at this distance of time will be very prejudicial to the appellant. Keeping a higher government official under charges of corruption and disputed integrity would cause unbearable mental agony and distress to the officer concerned. The protracted disciplinary enquiry against a government employee should, therefore, be avoided not only in the interests of the government employee but in public interest and also in the interests of inspiring confidence in the minds of the government employees. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. At this stage, it is necessary to draw the curtain and to put an end to the enquiry. The appellant had already suffered enough and more on account of the disciplinary proceedings. As a matter of fact, the mental agony and sufferings of the appellant due to the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment. For the mistakes committed by the department in the procedure for initiating the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant should not be made to suffer.” (Para 12) 16.1 The Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that the protracted disciplinary proceedings would be much more than the punishment and delinquent cannot be made suffer because of such proceedings. 17. In the backdrop of the aforesaid observations and analysis, the impugned order of removal is required to be quashed and set aside. Since the petitioner has retired on reaching the age of superannuation during the pendency of the petition and he was also continued in service because of the interim orders of this Court and he is also paid the provisional pension. He would be entitled to retiral benefit. 18. Under the circumstances, the present petitions stands allowed. The impugned order of removal is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to pay all the retiral benefits including final pension etc. to the petitioner. Necessary order in terms of the directions of this Court shall be passed within a period of two(2)months from the date of receipt of the writ of this order. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs. Direct service is permitted.