JUDGMENT : A.S. Supehia, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the punishment order dated 17.05.2001 imposing the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages for three years without future effect, which is further modified by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 13.06.2002 to the extent of reduction in pay by two stages for two years. 2. The brief facts of the case leading to filing of the present writ petition are as under: 2.1. The petitioner joined the service of the Public Health Engineering Department of the Government of Gujarat on 21.11.1969 as a Supervisor. The activity of the said department was transferred to the Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board, which was created in the year 1981. Pursuant to that, the employees and the officers attached with such activity of the Government, including the petitioner, were en bloc transferred to the said Board. 2.2. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Deputy Executive Engineer in May, 1982. The petitioner was issued a charge sheet dated 26.04.2000 for the alleged irregularities committed by him of the year 1984-87. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Desai appearing for the petitioner has submitted that for the very same alleged irregularities, one charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 01.12.1992, which was subsequently amended on 07.09.1996 and the petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 20.04.1998. He has submitted that, thus the respondent authorities, after exoneration of the petitioner for the charges alleged for the very period could not have issued the charge-sheet subsequently, on 26.04.2000 after a period of 13 years. He has submitted that the petitioner in his reply has raised the issue of delay with regard to the subsequent charge-sheet and it was pointed out that he was already exonerated for the almost similar irregularities by the order dated 20.04.1998. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of UCO Bank & Ors. vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 S.C.C. 92 . 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the respondent-Board has submitted that the impugned order of penalty cannot be set aside as the petitioner was involved in various irregularities. vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla, (2018) 14 S.C.C. 92 . 4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the respondent-Board has submitted that the impugned order of penalty cannot be set aside as the petitioner was involved in various irregularities. He has submitted that the petitioner was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health Sanitary Sub Division, Barvala between 09.04.1987 to 31.07.1987 and since it was noticed that he was involved in various irregularities, a departmental inquiry was required to investigate his misconduct. He has also submitted that with regard to delay aspect is concerned, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 14.08.1996. 4.1. Learned advocate Mr. H.S. Munshaw appearing for the respondent-Board has submitted that after the reply was received from the petitioner, a detailed opinion was forwarded by the respondent-Board on 22.09.1999 to the State Government. He has submitted that there were involvement of six other officers also and after they were grilled by the Board, the State Government forwarded its opinion to the Vigilance Commissioner on 13.10.1999 and thereafter, the Vigilance Commissioner addressed a letter on 27.11.1999 to the Government of Gujarat to initiate a departmental inquiry under Rules 9 and 10 of the Gujarat Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rule, 1971. He has also submitted that the Vigilance Commissioner received an application dated 11.02.1990 with regard to the involvement of the petitioner in various irregularities. He has submitted that thereafter the State Government forwarded the entire record to the respondent-Board and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and others on 25.04.2000 and after holding full fledged departmental inquiry, the impugned order of punishment was imposed. He has submitted that the Appellate Authority has taken a lenient view with regard to the penalty and hence, looking to the irregularities committed by the petitioner, the impugned orders of punishment may not be set aside. 5. I have heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. 6. Since the only issue, which is raised in the present petition, is with regard to the delay in initiating the departmental inquiry, this Court is not examining the matter on merits. The fact, which emerges from the record, is that the petitioner was issued one charge-sheet dated 01.12.1992 for the alleged irregularities for the period from 1984-87 when he was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer. The fact, which emerges from the record, is that the petitioner was issued one charge-sheet dated 01.12.1992 for the alleged irregularities for the period from 1984-87 when he was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer. The aforesaid charge-sheet was amended on 07.09.1996, wherein additional charges were added. A perusal of both the charge-sheets dated 01.12.1992 and the amended charge-sheet dated 07.09.1996 reveal that the same pertain to the irregularities for the period from 1984 to 1987. After the departmental inquiry was held, the petitioner has been exonerated in the aforesaid both the charge-sheets vide order dated 20.04.1998. Thus, various irregularities, which were alleged in the aforesaid charge-sheets of 1992 as well as 1996, are not held to be proved by the disciplinary authorities. It is pertinent to note that both the charge-sheets pertain to the period from January, 1984 to March, 1987. After the petitioner was exonerated by the aforesaid order dated 20.04.1998, again, after period of two years, a charge-sheet dated 25.04.2000 was issued to the petitioner for the irregularities, which is alleged to have been committed by him during the period from 09.07.1987 to 31.07.1987 when he was working as a Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Health Sanitary Sub Division, Barvala. The irregularities pertain to the year 1987 and the charge-sheet has been issued in the year 2000 after a period of 13 years. The respondents have tried to explain the delay as narrated hereinabove by stating that the petitioner was issued a show cause notice in 1996. The respondents have also tried to justify the delay by saying that the Vigilance Commissioner received an application dated 11.02.1990 with regard to various irregularities committed by the petitioner in purchasing material and thereafter, he was issued the show cause notice in 1996. The petitioner immediately replied to the same and after passage of three years, the respondent-Board forwarded its opinion to the State Government on 22.09.1999. Thereafter, the Vigilance Commissioner on 13.10.1999 addressed a letter on 27.11.1999 to the State Government to initiate departmental inquiry. Thus, the delay from 1990 to 1995 and from 1996 to 1999 is totally unexplained. 7. Be that as it may, even if the stand of the respondent authorities is justified, it was always open for them to amend the charge sheets for such irregularities when the earlier charge-sheets were issued in the year 1992 and 1996. Thus, the delay from 1990 to 1995 and from 1996 to 1999 is totally unexplained. 7. Be that as it may, even if the stand of the respondent authorities is justified, it was always open for them to amend the charge sheets for such irregularities when the earlier charge-sheets were issued in the year 1992 and 1996. The respondent authorities remained dormant on the alleged irregularities and the petitioner, though was exonerated by the order dated 20.04.1998, they did not do anything for two years and issued another charge-sheet in the year 2000. Thus, the delinquent cannot be made to undergo the rigors of the departmental proceedings in piecemeal manner. For the same tenure between 1984 to 1987, the petitioner is subjected to three charge-sheets i.e. in the year 1992, 1996 and 2000. Out of these three charge-sheets, the petitioner has been exonerated in the two charge-sheets, which were issued in the year 1992 and in the year 1996. It was not open for the respondents authorities to again issued another charge-sheet after exoneration of the petitioner for the almost similar misconduct in the year 2000 for the alleged irregularities committed by him 13 years back. Nothing prevented the authorities to add, alter or amend the charge sheets which were issued in 1992 and 1996, or they should have immediately issued the charge sheet, but the same is issued in the year 2000. The explanation tendered for delay is also not palatable, since the petitioner was already facing the departmental proceedings from 1992 to 1998, when the final order exonerating him was passed. The respondents waited for the departmental proceedings to be completed, and only after he was exonerated in 1998, another charge sheet was issued in 2000. If the respondent authorities were serious enough to act on the vigilance report, they should have immediately issue the charge sheet along with the charge sheets which were issued in 1992 and 1996. 8. No explanation is coming from the respondents authorities about delay in issuing the charge-sheet in the year 2000, after the petitioner was exonerated vide order dated 20.04.1998. The respondents could have further amended the charge-sheet in the year 1992 or 1998 for the very same charges for the irregularities, which are alleged to have been committed in the year 1987. 9. The respondents could have further amended the charge-sheet in the year 1992 or 1998 for the very same charges for the irregularities, which are alleged to have been committed in the year 1987. 9. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the observations made in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Shankar Shukla (supra), which read as under: "12. We do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is necessary for us to highlight a few facts which were brought to our notice during the course of submissions made by learned 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 up its mind is totally unreasonable and unacceptable. On this ground itself, the charge sheet against Shukla is liable to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its issuance" 10. Under the circumstances, the entire exercise carried out by the respondent-Board subjecting the petitioner into three departmental inquiries for the irregularities committed by him for the very same tenure, requires to be deprecated in wake of the fact that the petitioner has been exonerated in the two charge-sheets, which were issued in the year 1992 and in the year 1996. 11. In this view of the matter, the present writ petition succeeds. The impugned order of punishment order dated 17.05.2001, which was modified by the Appellate Authorities vide order dated 13.06.2002 are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to re-fix the pay, pension and retiral benefits of the petitioner accordingly. Necessary orders shall be passed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the writ of this judgment. Rule is made absolute.