JUDGMENT : Nikhil S. Kariel, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr.Deepak Sanchela for the petitioner and learned AGP Ms.Nirali Sarda for the respondent State. 2. Issue Rule returnable forthwith. Learned AGP waives service of notice of Rule for respondent State. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 3. By way of this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 6.11.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 herein, whereby the petitioner has been issued with a punishment of stoppage of two increments without future effect. 4. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted by the learned Advocate Mr.Sanchela that while the respondents had issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 25.4.2023, thereafter the respondents, without following the procedure as per Rule 9 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, have directly issued the order of punishment impugned in the petition. Learned Advocate would submit that having issued a charge-sheet and having not afforded an appropriate opportunity to the present petitioner to contest the allegations levelled against him and whereas the entire procedure adopted by the respondents being faulty the impugned order may be quashed and set aside. 5. As against the same, the petition is vehemently objected to by learned AGP Ms.Sarda on behalf of the respondent State, who would rely upon Rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2002. Learned AGP would submit that under the said Rule, the disciplinary authority, when penalties specified in Items No.1 to 3 of Rule6 i.e. minor penalties are sought to be imposed, then the disciplinary authority could do away with the formality of holding a departmental inquiry and whereas the government servant is only entitled to a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposed action. 5.1. Learned AGP would submit that in the instant case, the petitioner having been given a reasonable opportunity, more particularly the petitioner having filed his reply to the charge-sheet, therefore, the procedure envisaged under Rule 11(1)(a) stood fully complied with and, therefore, there is no error whatsoever committed by the respondents in imposing the punishment upon the present petitioner. Learned AGP would, therefore, submit that this Court may not interfere in the instant case. 6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, who have not submitting anything further. 7. Learned AGP would, therefore, submit that this Court may not interfere in the instant case. 6. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties, who have not submitting anything further. 7. Considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the parties, while it would appear that the fact of charge-sheet being issued upon the present petitioner is undisputed, it would also appear that the charge-sheet not having been taken further, i.e. the charge-sheet not being followed by appointment of Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer and whereas no further process having been taken pursuant to issuance of charge-sheet also appears not to be in dispute. 7.1. Thus the only issue which requires adjudication would be, as submitted by learned AGP, that the respondents having exercised power under Rule 11(1)(a) of Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2002, more particularly under the said Sub-rule, the respondents being entitled to do away with a departmental inquiry and more particularly on following principles of natural justice. At this stage, since Rule 11 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 2002 being relevant for the present purpose, the same is quoted herein below for benefit insofar as required :- a) “11. Procedure for imposing minor penalties : b) (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (3) of rule 10, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in items (1) to (3) of rule 6 shall be passed except after- (a) informing the Government servant in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior or of any culpable act or omission, on which it is proposed to be taken, and giving him a reasonable opportunity of making such representation as he may wish to make against the proposal. (b) holding an inquiry in the manner laid down in the sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 9, in every case in which the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary. (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration, 20 (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior or of any culpable act or omission, and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. (c) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the Government servant under clause (a) and the record of inquiry, if any, held under clause (b) into consideration, 20 (d) recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior or of any culpable act or omission, and (e) consulting the Commission where such consultation is necessary. Provided that where it is proposed after considering the representation, if any, made by the Government servant under clause (a) to withhold increments of pay and such withholding of increments is likely to affect adversely the amount of pension payable to the Government servant or to withhold increments of pay for a period exceeding three years or to withhold increments of pay with cumulative effect for any period, and inquiry shall be held in the manner laid down in sub-rules (3) to (22) of rule 9, before making any order imposing such penalty on a Government servant.” 8. A perusal of Rule 11(1)(a) inter alia shows that the said Sub-rule envisages a proposal to be issued to a government servant informing about the proposed decision of the State to take action against the employee and of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior upon which the action proposed is to be taken and after the employee being given a reasonable opportunity. Rule 11(1)(b) inter alia envisages that the disciplinary authority shall cause to hold an inquiry wherever it is necessary in the manner laid down in the sub-rules (3) to (23) of rule 9. For the present purpose, Sub-rule (c) would be important in as much as the said Sub-rule clarifies that what would be the further action, which is to be taken by the disciplinary authority, if action is taken as per Sub-rule (a) or (b) as herein above. It would appear that the said sub-rule envisages that if action is taken against a government servant as per Sub-rule (a), then the representation of the government servant shall be taken into consideration and if action is taken under Sub-rule (b), then the record of inquiry is to be taken on consideration. Thereafter, as per Sub-rule (d), the disciplinary authority is required to record a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior or of any culpable act or omission, as the case may be. 9. Thereafter, as per Sub-rule (d), the disciplinary authority is required to record a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior or of any culpable act or omission, as the case may be. 9. Considering the above position, it would appear that while the disciplinary authority is empowered to issue an order of penalty after giving an appropriate opportunity to the petitioner, more particularly on basis of a proposal for issuing for a penalty, meaning thereby that the disciplinary authority is empowered to issue a penalty without resorting to the procedure of regular departmental proceedings. On the other hand, it also appears that in case where the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that the inquiry is necessary, he shall hold an inquiry as per the manner laid down in Sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 9. This position would be further amplified whereby in Sub-rule (c) it has been mentioned that the disciplinary authority after taking representation of the government servant as per Sub-rule (1) i.e. as per the procedure whereby the departmental proceedings are not required to be held and ‘records of inquiry, if any held under Sub-rule (b)’ into considered. Thus, it would appear that once the disciplinary authority proceeds with the second mode i.e. the mode of holding a departmental inquiry, then the disciplinary authority shall take into consideration the record of inquiry, if any. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority as per Sub-rule (d) is required to record a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior, as the case may be. Thus, it would appear that if the disciplinary authority resorts to holding of a disciplinary inquiry, then the disciplinary inquiry has to take the same to its logical conclusion. 10. In the instant case, it would appear that having issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 25.4.2023 and having received the reply of the petitioner thereupon, the disciplinary authority has proceeded to issue an order of punishment which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not in accordance with the procedure as contemplated in the Rules as discussed herein above. The disciplinary authority having issued a charge-sheet that would imply that the disciplinary authority has come to an opinion that an inquiry is necessary and once the charge-sheet is issued in furtherance of the disciplinary proceedings, as per Rule 9 of Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, then disciplinary authority is required to follow the procedure as prescribed under Rule 9 i.e. of appointing an inquiry officer and the inquiry officer would also be required to follow the procedure as per Sub-rules. 11. Once a charge-sheet is issued, disciplinary authority is not empowered to revert back to the mode of proposal. Furthermore, having decided that a departmental inquiry is to be resorted to and having issued a charge-sheet in furtherance thereof, the reply to the charge-sheet cannot be treated as representation to the proposed punishment and consequently punishment could not have been issued. The entire procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority was completely alien to the scheme of the rules as discussed above. 12. Furthermore, in the instant case, after issuance of charge-sheet, no disciplinary proceeding has been conducted i.e. neither an inquiry officer has been appointed nor witnesses, if any, have been called for, nor the petitioner had been given an appropriate opportunity to contest the charges levelled against him. The said procedure as envisaged in Rules 9(3) to (23) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules has not been followed, which was a requirement upon issuance of the charge-sheet. Thus, on both the counts the respondents have not followed. 13. In that view of the matter, more particularly as per the explanation of Rule 11 stated herein above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the procedure adopted by the respondents being erroneous and against the specific procedure as laid down in the Rule cannot be permitted to continue. In view of the aforesaid discussion, observations and conclusion, the impugned order dated 6.11.2023 issued by the respondents imposing punishment upon the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are at liberty to hold a disciplinary inquiry against the present petitioner, more particularly pursuant to the charge-sheet to the petitioner issued on 25.4.2023 and whereas the procedure as laid down in Rule 9(3) to (23) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules shall be followed by the respondents while holding the inquiry. 14. With the above observations and discussion, the present petition is disposed of as allowed. 14. With the above observations and discussion, the present petition is disposed of as allowed. It is clarified that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the charge-sheet issued to the present petitioner.