JUDGMENT : A.S. SUPEHIA, J. 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the respondent. 2. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2023 passed in the captioned writ petition, which is assailed in the present appeal, has decided the writ petition on the sole issue which has been recorded in paragraph No. 7.1 of the judgment relating to the provisions of Rule 11(1)(a) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 2002. It appears that no other contentions were raised before the learned Single Judge. 3. The respondent, who was serving as a Chief Officer, was issued a charge-sheet dated 25.04.2023. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet reveals that the same is issued under Rule 11 Gujarat Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1971 (for short “the Rules, 1971”) alleging violation of the provisions of the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971 more particularly sub-rule (2) of Rule 3(1) and sub-rule (b) of Rule (3A). Thus, the charge-sheet itself reflects that the same is issued under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1971. Thus, there appears to be typing mistake in the order passed by the learned Single Judge, since erroneously the 2002 Rules are referred. 4. The respondent-Chief Officer had assailed his punishment order dated 06.11.2023 passed by the State authorities imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment for a period of two years without future effect, which unquestionably falls under minor penalties of the Rules, 1971. The learned Single Judge, after examining the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1971, which prescribes the procedure for imposing the minor penalties has held that the disciplinary authority is required to hold a full-fledged inquiry under the provisions of Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules, 1971, once a charge-sheet is issued. It is recorded thus: “10. In the instant case, it would appear that having issued a chargesheet 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 chargesheet 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.” 5. Thus, the learned Single Judge has held that once the charge-sheet is issued to an employee/delinquent, it is incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to hold regular departmental inquiry in the manner laid down in the sub-rule (3) to (23) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1971. 6. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge fell in error in holding that the disciplinary authority was required to hold the departmental inquiry. Rule 9 of the Rules, 1971 falls under Chapter-4, which prescribes for procedure for imposing major penalties. Unquestionably, in the present case, the respondent-delinquent has not been imposed any major penalty, but a minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for two years without future effect has been imposed, which would falls under Rule 6(2) of Chapter-3 of the Rules, 1971. 7. Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules, 1971 which is interpreted by the learned single judge reads as under: “11. Procedure for imposing minor penalties: (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 at items (1) to (3) of rule 6 shall be passed except after: *** *** *** (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.” 8. Thus, Rule 11(1)(b) of the Rules, 1971 prescribes procedure for imposing minor penalties such as stoppage of increment without future. The Rule also gives a discretion on the disciplinary authority to hold a regular departmental inquiry as envisaged under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1971. Rule 11(b) of the Rules, 1971 specifically mentions that only if the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that such inquiry is necessary while imposing minor penalties, it may hold an inquiry laid down in sub-rules (3) to (23) of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1971. 9. In the present case, the charge-sheet itself is issued under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1971, which prescribes the procedure for imposing minor penalties and hence, the disciplinary authority, after considering the representation and defence statement filed by the respondent-Chief Officer, imposed minor penalty without resorting to the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules, 1971, which prescribes the procedure for imposition of major penalties. Thus, the disciplinary authority, while issuing the charge-sheet and ultimately, while imposing the minor penalties, was conscious of provisions of Rule 11(1)(b) and not deemed it necessary to hold a regular inquiry as prescribed under Rule 9 since the minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for two years without future effect was imposed. 10. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of DHBVNL Vidyut Nagar, Hisar and Ors. Vs. Yashvir Singh Guliya, (2013) 11 SCC 173 . On an identical issue and pari materia regulations to the Rules, 1971, the Apex Court, in paragraph No. 1, framed the issue as under: “The question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether once a charge-sheet has been issued for imposition of a major penalty under Regulation 7 of the Haryana State Electricity Board Employees (Punishment & Appeal) Regulations, 1990 [for short “the Regulations 1990”], is it obligatory on the part of the Disciplinary Authority to conduct a full fledged departmental inquiry even if, after considering the reply of the delinquent, the authority decides to impose a minor penalty, for which no departmental inquiry is provided under the Regulations.” 11. Thus, the Apex Court, after framing the question, which is analogous to the issue raised in the present appeal, and after examining pari materia rules, has held thus: “14. Thus, the Apex Court, after framing the question, which is analogous to the issue raised in the present appeal, and after examining pari materia rules, has held thus: “14. The abovementioned provisions would indicate that an employee can be charge-sheeted for inflicting major penalties as well as minor penalties. In a given case even if a major penalty has been proposed on getting the reply from the delinquent, if the competent authority feels that no major penalty proceeding need be initiated, it can always switch over to initiate proceeding for inflicting minor penalties. Such a power is conferred on the Board vide Sub-Regulation 8 of Regulation 7, which reads as follows: “7(8). Where an employee has been charge-sheeted under this regulation and the Competent Authority, on receipt of his reply to the charge sheet is of the opinion that no major punishment as laid down in Regulation-4 (vi to x) is called for, it may dispense with the holding of enquiry and inflict straight-away any of the minor penalties as laid down in Clause (i) to (v) of the ibid Regulation by a speaking order.” 15. Above referred regulations, especially Regulation 7(8) clearly indicates that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer. In such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Minor penalty, as per the Regulation, can be inflicted without holding any departmental inquiry, by giving only a show-cause-notice and a reasonable opportunity to make a representation to the show-cause-notice. Personal hearing can also be afforded and also can be dispensed with by a speaking order. 16. We are of the view that the procedure referred to hereinbefore has been followed by the Board. The delinquent officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a conscious decision to impose only a minor penalty, i.e. barring one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated. Learned District Judge as well as the High Court, in our view, has committed a grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Board which, in our view, is perfectly legal, going by the regulations referred to hereinbefore. Learned District Judge as well as the High Court, in our view, has committed a grave error in interfering with the punishment imposed by the Board which, in our view, is perfectly legal, going by the regulations referred to hereinbefore. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned District Judge as well as that of the High Court is set aside.” 12. The Apex Court has held that “The delinquent officer was given an opportunity to submit his reply to the show-cause-notice which was considered and the Board took a conscious decision to impose only a minor penalty, i.e. barring one increment without cumulative effect, for which no full-fledged departmental inquiry is contemplated”. The Apex Court has also held that the competent authority has got the power to dispense with the procedure for holding a departmental inquiry, even though it had contemplated major penalty proceedings, on being satisfied with the reply submitted by the delinquent officer, and in such a case, it can always follow the procedure for imposing minor penalty. 13. In the present case, on the contrary, the charge-sheet has been issued under the provisions of Rule 11 of the Rules, 1971, which contemplates imposition of minor penalty however, in the case before the Apex Court, the charge-sheet was issued for imposition of major penalty. Thus, in the present case, when the charge-sheet itself was issued under Rule 11, which prescribes procedure for imposing minor penalty, there was no necessity for holding the regular departmental inquiry under Rule 9 since the disciplinary authority did not find it necessary to resort to the same as prescribed under Rule 11(b). Ultimately, the respondent has been imposed the minor penalty of stoppage of one increment for the period of two years without future effect. Hence, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge fell in error in setting aside the impugned order of punishment for the reason that the full-fledged departmental inquiry was necessitated once the charge-sheet has been issued to the respondent-delinquent. 14. It appears that before the learned Single Judge, the respondent-original writ petitioner had only canvased the issue of holding the regular departmental inquiry and the impugned order was assailed on merits as no submissions were advanced before the learned Single Judge. 15. Learned advocate Mr. 14. It appears that before the learned Single Judge, the respondent-original writ petitioner had only canvased the issue of holding the regular departmental inquiry and the impugned order was assailed on merits as no submissions were advanced before the learned Single Judge. 15. Learned advocate Mr. Sanchela appearing for the respondent-delinquent has admitted that only the issue of holding the regular departmental inquiry has been raised, however there are other grounds mentioned in the writ petition, hence it is urged that the matter may be remanded to the learned Single Judge for raising other grounds. 16. Learned AGP Mr. Trivedi has submitted that appropriate order may be passed in this regard and he has no objection if the matter is remanded for examining this aspect. 17. Hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge for examining the impugned order of punishment dated 06.11.2023 on the grounds mentioned in the writ petition, other than the one which is decided by us. 18. The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge. The writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original file, and shall be listed as per the roaster. 19. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.