JUDGMENT : Vaibhavi D. Nanavati, J. 1. The petitioner herein by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenges the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the respondent No.2 imposing punishment duly produced at Annexure – P; the same being unreasonable, arbitral and violative of principles of natural justice and has prayed for the following reliefs: “13. In view of the above facts and circumstances the Petitioner therefore PRAY this Hon Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and prays that this Hon. Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Direction or Order:- a) Quashing and setting aside the impugned order DT 01.08.2005 and order dated 10.02.2009 of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Gujarat Gandhinagar Respondent No.2. b) Direct the Respondent No.2 to treat the entire period of suspension from 01.10.1983 to 06.03.2000 as duty for all purposes with annual increments, difference of salary alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date the amount is due till the date of payment, continuity of service, seniority and all other consequential benefits as if the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 are not passed. c) Directing the Respondent to promote the petitioner with effect from the date from which his junior was promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forests and Deputy Conservator of Forests etc. d) Granting such other and further reliefs and passing such other and further orders as may be necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. e) Awarding costs of this application to the applicant.” 2. Heard Mr. C.K. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Ms. Pooja K. Ashar, learned AGP appearing for the respondents. 3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition read thus: 3.1 The petitioner herein came to be appointed as Range Forest Officer on 07.11.1975. Thereafter, chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 15.10.1983. On 30.01.1985, the inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer after 18 months. On 15.04.1986, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3.2 In the year 1986, an appeal came to be filed before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal by the petitioner. On 07.12.1987, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the department for denovo inquiry on day to day basis. On 15.04.1986, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3.2 In the year 1986, an appeal came to be filed before the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal by the petitioner. On 07.12.1987, the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the matter back to the department for denovo inquiry on day to day basis. 3.3 On 30.10.1990, the second inquiry report was submitted after a long period of three years wherein, charges were not proved. However, the disciplinary authority did not agree with the Inquiry Officer’s report. On 07.02.1992, the respondent authority issued show cause notice for compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 30.10.1992. 3.4 On 02.11.1992, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.7798 of 1992. On 02.12.1993, the said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of with a direction to the respondent to dispose of the matter within 8 weeks. On 01.02.1994, the respondent authority issued order of compulsory retirement. On 11.04.1994, the said order was challenged before the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by way of Appeal No.196 of 1994. On 28.05.1997, the Tribunal set aside the order of 01.02.1994 and directed to reconsider the case afresh from the stage of show cause notice. 3.5 On 19.04.1999, again show cause notice for compulsory retirement was issued to the petitioner. On 07.03.2000, the petitioner was reinstated by the respondent in the post of Range Forest Officer. On 01.05.2002, the respondent issued an order enhancing the punishment and fine to the tune of Rs.50,223/- from Rs.7590/- without issuance of show cause notice. In view thereof, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.6294 of 2002 to redress the grievances wherein, by order dated 04.02.2003, the order dated 01.05.2002 came to be quashed and set aside. On 29.12.2003, the respondent modified the order of 01.05.2002. 3.6 On 01.08.2005, the punishment was enhanced again to the effect that suspension period would not be counted for the purpose of pension. On 18.07.2007, the respondents revised the order of punishment enhancing it further by withdrawing notional increment which was allowed earlier to count for pension. 3.7 On 01.08.2007, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest. 3.6 On 01.08.2005, the punishment was enhanced again to the effect that suspension period would not be counted for the purpose of pension. On 18.07.2007, the respondents revised the order of punishment enhancing it further by withdrawing notional increment which was allowed earlier to count for pension. 3.7 On 01.08.2007, the petitioner was promoted as Assistant Conservator of Forest. On 03.11.2007, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No.30100 of 2007 wherein, by order dated 14.12.2007, the order passed by the respondent dated 18.07.2007 came to be quashed and set aside and it was directed to the respondent to reconsider the matter afresh within a period of three months. On 10.02.2009, the respondent passed the impugned order simply by reproducing the order dated 29.12.2003; which is under challenge. On 30.11.2009, the petitioner retired on superannuation. In the above set of facts, the petitioner herein has approached this Court seeking the reliefs as referred above. 4. Mr. C.K. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order dated 01.08.2005 passed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Gujarat, Gandhinagar – i.e. the respondent No.2 herein has merged with the final order passed by the respondent No.2 herein dated 10.02.2009. It is submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 10.02.2009, the respondent No.2 ought to treat the entire period of suspension from 01.10.1983 to 06.03.2000 as duty for the purposes with annual increments, difference of salary along with interest @12% p.a. from the date the amount is due and payable till the date of payment, continuity of service, seniority and all other consequential benefits. 4.1 Mr. Divakaran, learned advocate also submitted that the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner with effect from the date from which, the junior was promoted to Assistant Conservator of Forests and Deputy Conservator of Forests etc. considering the fact that the petitioner herein came to be promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests on 01.08.2007. Reliance is placed on the table duly produced at page 195 to the petition and placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that there are juniors who are promoted prior to the petitioner herein and that, the aforesaid anomaly be accordingly, modified. 4.2 Mr. Reliance is placed on the table duly produced at page 195 to the petition and placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that there are juniors who are promoted prior to the petitioner herein and that, the aforesaid anomaly be accordingly, modified. 4.2 Mr. Divakaran, learned advocate submitted that the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 consequent to the disciplinary authority’s disagreement with the Inquiry Officer’s report on charge Nos.1(2) and 2(6) remains to be considered, all the other issues are infructuous or already settled. It is submitted that the disagreement to the charge Nos.1(2) and 2(6) suffers from non- application of mind and the same is perverse. Reliance is placed on the findings of the Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal at page 65, 68 and 74 respectively whereby, the Tribunal by order dated 28.05.1997, remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It is submitted that the notice under Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules (BCSR) is not served before denying the salary for the suspension period after reinstatement. It is submitted that the petitioner has suffered indefinite suspension period of 16 and half years; the same is not regularized despite exonerating the petitioner from all the charges and has been reinstated. It is submitted that large number of juniors superseded the petitioner on 09.03.1984 to Assistant Conservator of Forest and thereafter, some of them further promoted on 13.10.1997 to Deputy Conservator of Forest; which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the seniority of the petitioner is at serial No.182 in the RFO cadre however, the petitioner was promoted only on 01.08.2007 along with the juniors who were at serial No.388 i.e. 206 number below the petitioner which has resulted in gross injustice to the petitioner herein. 4.3 Mr. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, placed reliance on 1999 (1) GLH 150 in case of Ramsunder Shamlal vs. Y.B/ Jhala or his successor, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Ors., 2019 (1) GLH 152 in case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs. State of Gujarat, Special Civil Application No.5682 of 2002 dated 10.06.2014 in case of R.C. Patel vs. State of Gujarat, (2016) 1 SCC 781 in case of Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for are such that the same be allowed. 5. Ms. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that the prayers as prayed for are such that the same be allowed. 5. Ms. Pooja K. Ashar, learned AGP appearing for the respondents, at the outset, submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the respondent authority; the same having been passed upon following cardinal principles of natural justice and due procedure of law. 5.1 Answering to the contention of the petitioner with respect to delay, it is submitted that in the year 1983, the petitioner was working as Range Forest Officer, Extension Range Umargam in Navsari Forest Division. During the field visit of Conservator of Forest, Bharuch Circle, several irregularities in advance work and nursery work were observed and accordingly, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Navsari, was directed to enquire into the matter. Since a prima facie case against the petitioner for misappropriation of Government money was noticed, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide C.F. Office letter dated 16.09.1983. It is submitted that from time to time, the notices and orders passed by the respondent authorities have been subject matter of challenge before the higher forum and in view thereof, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent authority on 10.02.2009 for which, the onus cannot be put on the respondent authority for the delay. 5.2 The second contention raised by the petitioner herein that the notice required under Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules is not issued to the petitioner herein, is answered by relying on the impugned order duly produced at Annexure – P, page 113 whereupon, placing reliance of page 113/G, it is submitted that upon remand by order dated 14.12.2007 passed in Special Civil Application No.30100 of 2007 which is duly produced at page 97/A, since no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner before enhancement of punishment vide order dated 1-7.08.2005, the said order was quashed and set aside and thereupon, the petitioner herein made representation and the respondent authority considered the written submissions made by the petitioner herein. It is submitted that in view thereof, the respondent authority has duly complied with the order dated 14.12.2007 as also Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. 5.3 Ms. Ashar, learned AGP, relied on the compilation placed on record wherein, the petitioner herein is granted promotion on 01.08.2007 as Assistant Conservator of Forests. It is submitted that in view thereof, the respondent authority has duly complied with the order dated 14.12.2007 as also Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. 5.3 Ms. Ashar, learned AGP, relied on the compilation placed on record wherein, the petitioner herein is granted promotion on 01.08.2007 as Assistant Conservator of Forests. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the respondent authority has followed due procedure and acted in accordance with law. It is submitted that upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner herein retired on 31.03.2009. Reliance is placed on the pension and other retirement benefits extended to the petitioner herein duly produced at Annexure – 6, Page 9 to the compilation. Further, 5.4 Ms. Ashar, learned AGP also relied on the impugned order and submitted that the said order which is subject matter of challenge is just and proper wherein, the competent authority has considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner herein and passed the order dated 10.02.2009, duly produced at page 113/G. It is submitted that the order is also modified by considering the period of suspension as on duty for the purposes of payment of pension. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that no interference is called for in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 herein. 6. Mr. C.K. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted that while the juniors came to be promoted prior to the petitioner herein, once again, placed reliance on page 195 wherein, a table is produced stating that the juniors to the petitioner herein have been promoted much earlier. Analysis:- 7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it is apposite to refer to the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 which is duly produced at page 113/A (true translation) : “Mr. C.V. Pillai served as Range Forest Officer in Umargam range from 06/05/1981 to 22/04/1983 in Navsari Extension Department. During that time, in 1983-84, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him after he was found to have been involved in irregularities in plantation work such as pits, fencing, nursery, etc wherein the allegations of making false vouchers and misappropriation of money were made by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Surat and enclosed vide reference-1. During that time, in 1983-84, a departmental inquiry was conducted against him after he was found to have been involved in irregularities in plantation work such as pits, fencing, nursery, etc wherein the allegations of making false vouchers and misappropriation of money were made by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Surat and enclosed vide reference-1. Charge -1 About preparing False vouchers (1) In the year 1983-84, Though no anticipatory work was done for cultivation in the Daheri and Govada rural forest, the expenditure was incurred on making false vouchers. (2) The payment was made by making false vouchers showing more work than the actual work done on the Umargam-Gowada road. (3) The payment shown completed by making entry of names of Mrs. Meena Babu and Mr. Jaswant Kalu on roll numbers 341, 349 and 1435 in Register related to the work of Umargam Nursery. (4) Instead of 260 brass of soil and 16 brass manure, bill of 270 brass soil and 64 brass manure was borrowed and expense was shown. Charge-2 Regarding embezzlement of Government money. 1. In Dehri and Govada villages, though anticipatory work of plantation in year 1983-84 was not done, despite false vouchers of Rs. 7,590/- were prepared and borrowed from the cash book and embezzlement was done. 2. On Umargam-Govada road, an anticipatory work of 4,000 pits and fencing of 2,500 running meters was done However, embezzlement of Rs.10,379/- was done by creating false vouchers for 10,600 pits and fencing of 7,650 running meters. 3. In Daheri village forest, the expenditure of Rs. 3,570/- for 8,500 pits at 0.42 paise per pit is shown in the cashbook. However, embezzlement of Rs. 595/- has been done by paying 0.35 paise per pit. The total cost of trench fencing is shown Rs 1800/- by considering Rs. 368/- per Hector. Wherein, embezzlement of Rs. 840/- has been done by making payment of Rs. 960/-. 4. In Karambeli Gramvan, total Rs. 1,980/- is shown against 4,400 pits @ Rs. 0.45 paisa per pit, Hence, an embezzlement of Rs. 440/- was done by paying Rs. 1,540/-. Further, in Kalai Gramvan, the actual cost of Rs.630/- is shown @ 0.42 paisa per pit, for 1,500 pits, hence an embezzlement of Rs. 105/- was done by paying Rs. 525/-. 5. On Nargol-Maroli road, the actual payment of Rs. 26,928/- was made against the expenditure of Rs. 31,824/- for 24,400 Sq. mts of fencing. 1,540/-. Further, in Kalai Gramvan, the actual cost of Rs.630/- is shown @ 0.42 paisa per pit, for 1,500 pits, hence an embezzlement of Rs. 105/- was done by paying Rs. 525/-. 5. On Nargol-Maroli road, the actual payment of Rs. 26,928/- was made against the expenditure of Rs. 31,824/- for 24,400 Sq. mts of fencing. Thus, an embezzlement of Rs. 4,826/- has been done. 6. On the Pali-Karambeli-Killai road, the actual payment of Rs. 10,868 against the expenditure of Rs.12,844/- for 9,880 Sq. Mtr was done. Hence, an embezzlement of Rs.1,976/- has been made. Further, the actual payment of Rs.3,080/- was done against the expenditure of Rs. 3,960/- for 8,800 pits and an embezzlement of Rs. 880/- has been made. 7. On Mohangam-Moti Daman Road, total 10,200 pits and 7,250 Sq. Mtr of fencing was done for plantation, wherein the actual payments of Rs. 3,774/- and Rs. 8,382-/ were made against the cost of 4,590/- and 9,906/- respectively and an embezzlement of Rs. 1,524/- was done. 8. In Umargam Van Mahotsav Nursery, attendance of 1851.5 days was shown against the attendance of 1419.5 days in the muster roll and amount of Rs. 4642.50 was embezzled for 432 days. 9. Rs. 15,500/- was embezzled by crediting false vouchers to purchase fertilizer and soil for Umargam Nursery. Thus, as mentioned above, the charge-sheet alleges that Mr. C.V. Pillai has made embezzlement of Rs. 50,233.50 paise. The inquiry in the above case against Mr. C.V. Pillai was handed over to the Special Investigation Officer (BRP), Vadodara. The Special Investigation Officer (BRP) has completed the judicial inquiry of the above case and has submitted a report vide letter at reference-2 wherein it was concluded that the allegations against Mr. Pillai are partially proven. By considering the findings of the Departmental Investigation Special Officer, a show cause notice was issued vide the letter at reference-3. At last, order was passed ‘to dismiss’ Mr. Pillai, R.F.O. from service vide letter No. MHK/DPE/418/3/B/695 dated 15-4-86 of this office. Upon aggrieved by the said order herein, Mr. Pillai, R.F.O., filed Appeal No. 565/1986 in the Hon'ble Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal. At last, order was passed ‘to dismiss’ Mr. Pillai, R.F.O. from service vide letter No. MHK/DPE/418/3/B/695 dated 15-4-86 of this office. Upon aggrieved by the said order herein, Mr. Pillai, R.F.O., filed Appeal No. 565/1986 in the Hon'ble Gujarat Civil Service Tribunal. The Hon'ble Tribunal delivered its judgment in the said appeal on 07/12/1987 (Reference-5) wherein the Hon'ble Tribunal "set aside" the said order and again placed Shri Pillai under suspension of duty and directed that the case to be re-submitted to the Special Officer of Departmental Investigation (BRP), Vadodara for investigation. Accordingly, the re-investigation of the departmental investigation was conducted for the first time from 30/01/1985 was handed over to the Special Officer for Departmental Inquiry, Vadodara by the order at reference-6. As per the said order, the Special Officer of Departmental Investigation (BRP), Vadodara completed the re-investigation of the said case and submitted a report with the findings of the case on 30/11/90 as per reference-7. On not agreeing with the findings of the case by the Special Officer of Departmental Inquiry (BRP), Vadodara, a show cause notice was issued to Mr. Pillai on 07/10/1992 as per reference-8. Upon concluding that Mr. Pillai is found guilty in the above case and considering the seriousness of the allegations against him, an order for compulsorily retirement of Mr. Pillai was passed and to count the period under suspension as under suspension as per letter number MHK/2815(2)/23/3/B/ 13840-43 dated 01/02/1994 (Reference-9). Against which, Mr. Pillai, the R.F.O. filed Appeal No.196/1994 before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Tribunal decided the said appeal on 28/05/1997 (Reference – 10) Wherein, it was ordered to conduct the proceeding again from the stage of the show-cause notice after canceling the order of penalty imposed by this office upon Mr. Pillai, the RFO. As per the said order of the Hon’ble Tribunal, the order of penalty passed by this office on 01/02/1994 was canceled (Reference – 11) A show-cause notice was issued to Mr. Pillai, the RFO vide Letter No.MHK/DPE/3/B/1507-11 dated 01/04/1994 of this office (Reference – 12) Wherein, it was stated as to why Mr. Pillai should not be compulsorily retired from his service. However, considering the defence statement dated 03/05/1999 submitted by Mr. Pillai and the representation made by him in person with more sympathy, instead of making him compulsorily retired, the order to withhold five increments of Mr. Pillai should not be compulsorily retired from his service. However, considering the defence statement dated 03/05/1999 submitted by Mr. Pillai and the representation made by him in person with more sympathy, instead of making him compulsorily retired, the order to withhold five increments of Mr. Pillai with future effect in the present pay-scale of 5500-175-9000 of Range Forest Officer and to place him under suspension was passed vide Letter No.MHK/DPE/ 3/B/30976-80 dated 13/03/2000 (Reference–13) after changing the penalty. Against the order dated 13/03/2000 imposing penalty, Mr. Pillai, R.F.O. filed the Appeal No.239/2000 before the Hon’ble Tribunal against the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and the Forest and Environment Department, Gandhinagar. During this time, Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. had submitted before the Hon’ble Court that a careful consideration is being made at the level of the Government with respect to the said chapter. Therefore, a request to withdraw the said appeal was made to the Hon’ble Tribunal. As per the request of Mr. Pillai, after withdrawal of the said appeal from the Tribunal, the appeal / representation dated 13/09/2001 (Reference - 14) was made by Mr. Pillai, R.F.O., wherein he requested to acquit him in the said case by submitting that he is not guilty in the said case, there is heavy workload and pressure in the month of March, it is not possible to supervise the work on daily basis during this period, there is shortage of labourers as it is a GIDC area and the labourers are required to be brought from outside, the labourers brought from outside demand money in-between and therefore, partial payment has to be done to the labourers as per the recommendation of the Forester. The appeal made by Mr. Pillai, R.F.O., was considered again with sympathy. The order was passed vide Letter No.MHK/DPE/3/B/2060-62 dated 01/05/2002 to consider the period of suspension as the period of service for the purpose of pension only and to recover Rs. 50,233.50/-, which was misappropriated by Mr.Pillai, R.F.O. (Reference – 15). Against the said order dated 01/05/2002, Mr.C.V.Pillai, R.F.O., filed S.C.A. No.6294/2002 in the Hon’ble High Court against the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Gujarat State. 50,233.50/-, which was misappropriated by Mr.Pillai, R.F.O. (Reference – 15). Against the said order dated 01/05/2002, Mr.C.V.Pillai, R.F.O., filed S.C.A. No.6294/2002 in the Hon’ble High Court against the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest and Gujarat State. In its judgement dated 04/02/2003 in SCA No. 6294/2002, the Hon’ble High Court held that the applicant has not been given opportunity of being heard or submitting defence before passing the said order of penalty, the applicant should be given sufficient opportunity of being heard / submitting defence as per the principal of natural justice and it passed the order to “Quashed and set aside” the order passed vide Letter No.MHK/DPE/3/B/2060-62 dated 01/05/2002 of this office and instructed to take penal action after giving him sufficient opportunity for defence after issuing a show-cause notice as to why the penalty likely to be imposed (including major penalty) shall not be imposed upon the applicant. In this regard, a show-cause notice was issued to Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. vide Letter No.B/MHK/DPE/3/40-43 dated 02/04/2003 of this office. Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. submitted his written statement of defence dated 17/05/2003. Considering the same, following penalty was imposed upon Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. vide following Letters No.B/MHK/DPE/ 3/11491-98 dated 29/12/2003 and No.B/MHK/DPE /3/15911-16 dated 06/02/2004. (1) Rs.7,590/- (Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety/-) shall be recovered from Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. (2) The entire period of suspension is held as suspension. However, it shall be considered as service only for the purpose of pension. (3) Next two annual increments in the current pay-scale of the Range Forest Officer shall be permanently withheld for two years with future effect. Aggrieved by the said order of penalty, Mr. C. P. Pillai, R.F.O. made a written representation before the Forest and Environment Department, Gandhinagar. With respect to the same, the Forest and Environment Department, Gandhinagar informed this office vide its Letter No.KhTS/ 1302/ ACA/69/D/1 dated 04/02/05 to pass a revised order with instruction that the period of suspension of Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. cannot be considered as the “pensionable service”. Therefore, by the order of this office vide Letter No.B/ MHK/ DPE/ 3/67/6534-40 dated 01/08/2005, the following partially revised order was passed in the order of penalty dated 29/12/2003. “However, it shall be considered as service for the purpose of pension only.” These words are removed from the order. Against the order of penalty passed by this office, Mr. Therefore, by the order of this office vide Letter No.B/ MHK/ DPE/ 3/67/6534-40 dated 01/08/2005, the following partially revised order was passed in the order of penalty dated 29/12/2003. “However, it shall be considered as service for the purpose of pension only.” These words are removed from the order. Against the order of penalty passed by this office, Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. filed SCA No.30100/2007 in the Hon’ble High Court. Vide its oral order dated 14/12/2007, the Hon’ble High Court instructed that Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. should make his representation before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar within six weeks and that the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar should reconsider such representation to be made by Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. With respect to the order of the Hon’ble High Court dated 14/12/2007, Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. made his written representation to this office on 05/01/2008 and 05/02/2008. Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O., especially made the following representation. When I repeatedly approached the Hon’ble Tribunal and Hon’ble Court, these judicial bodies have passed judgement in my favour, however no impartial order has been passed. Considering the period of suspension as suspension, it has damaged my reputation. Therefore, I request you to acquit me of the allegations." Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. has not produced any substantial evidence or reliable facts in his written representation. In fact, he has availed himself of the above mentioned increasing sympathy by taking recourse to the Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court, the facts of which are on record. As mentioned in Article No. 6 of Gujarat Forest Manual Part-1, the Range Forest Officer is responsible for the protection of the forests within his range as well as for the overall administration of the range. Also, it is his responsibility to do plantation, protect the plantation, do nursery work, and carry out anticipatory work for planting on time within the range under his control. And he has to inspect and verify the work done on site and make payment if the work is done according to the rules. The payment is to be done after preparing Vouchers and taking its measurement and by carrying out its supervision at the spot as per Volume -1 of Gujarat Forest Manual, and it is his Primary duty. Mr. The payment is to be done after preparing Vouchers and taking its measurement and by carrying out its supervision at the spot as per Volume -1 of Gujarat Forest Manual, and it is his Primary duty. Mr. Pillai - R.F.O. has failed to carry out his primary duty and though he has not carried out the work as mentioned in the Annexure - A, B and C of the Statement of imputation dtd. 15/10/1983 issued to him, despite that he have produced the fake vouchers of the names of the labourers and done financial payments and thus he have caused financial loss of Rs.50,233.50/- to the government, which is an indisputable fact. The Special Officer of the Departmental Inquiry have not proved (this act/ offence) in absence of the solid evidence on considering the statements as well as documentary evidences of the concerned panchas and Forester. This could not be acceptable. Mr. Pillai- R.F.O. have caused the financial loss of Rs. 50,233.50/- to the government. The anticipatory works for the plantation in the Forests of the villages Dehri and Govada have not been done in the year 1983-84. These facts have been corroborated by the Panchas of the Panchnama drawn at the place which have been examined as the witness on behalf of the government, these panchas are - Raman Babar Patel - Resi. Govada, Dahya Bhagvan Patel - Resi. Govada, and Bava Makan Patel - Resi. Dehri. These persons (panchas) have given such an evidence during the investigation in their presence that the work of digging the pits at the place as well as doing fencing around this place have not been done. Also Mr. Dayal Fakir Patel - Resi. of Govada, who is the Village - Head Man (Sarpanch) have been examined as the witness on behalf of the government. He have also stated in his deposition that 4 hectors of land was allotted for afforestation, among the pasture land of survey no. 175. On verifying in it ( in the said land), the procedure of digging the pits and doing fencing around it have not been done. Such an evidence have been given by him. He have also stated in his deposition that 4 hectors of land was allotted for afforestation, among the pasture land of survey no. 175. On verifying in it ( in the said land), the procedure of digging the pits and doing fencing around it have not been done. Such an evidence have been given by him. Further, among the laborers on Muster (Roll) of the Anticipatory Work, namely - Ramesh Babu, Laxman Ramji and Nagin Ratna have also corroborated the allegation by stating that they have not gone to work on behalf of the Forest Department in the pasture land of Dehri and Govada. Thus, although the anticipatory works have not been carried out in the forests of village Dehri ang Govada, despite that the false vouchers of Rs. 7,590/- have been prepared in March-2003, which have proved that the financial embezzlement was done by Mr. Pillai, R.F.O. and it was concluded by the Special Officer for the Departmental Inquiry in his Legal Investigation Report dtd. 30/01/1985. Thus, I completely agree with it. But during the second time investigation of the said case after a long time, when the panchas Mr. Raman Babar Patel - Resi. of Govada and Mr. Dahya Bhagvan Patel - Resi. of Govda went at the sea shore of village Dehri to draw the panchnama, (at that time) the pits were digged and the fencing was done. They have seen these and have not measured the fence. At this time, they were sitting in the Jeep car along with the another panchas. On giving such an unclear deposition before the Special Officer of the Departmental Inquiry which is far from the truth, he have concluded in his Investigation Report dtd. 30/11/1990 that the said allegations have remained unproven due to lack of solid evidence on the basis of doubt. Such an observance was given. I do not agree at all with this. The Re-investigation of the said case was carried out after a very long time. This effect was seen in the depositions of the witnesses. An adverse effect has been fallen upon the truthfulness of the case due to the vague depositions of the witnesses. Thus, during the first time investigation, it was undoubtedly proved that the financial embezzlement of Rs. 7,590/- has taken place. Further, an allegation have been imposed that the delinquent have created an irregularity by doing financial embezzlement of Rs. 50,233.50/-. An adverse effect has been fallen upon the truthfulness of the case due to the vague depositions of the witnesses. Thus, during the first time investigation, it was undoubtedly proved that the financial embezzlement of Rs. 7,590/- has taken place. Further, an allegation have been imposed that the delinquent have created an irregularity by doing financial embezzlement of Rs. 50,233.50/-. Among which an embezzlement of Rs. 7,590/- has been proved. Thus, on deducting this amount, Mr. Pillai - R.F.O. have caused the loss of Rs. 42,643.50/- to the government by creating financial embezzlement, which is an undisputed fact. Due to the investigation of the case being carried out after a long time, the Special Officer of the Departmental Inquiry have considered the statements and documentary evidence of the concerned panchas and Foresters as ambiguous and have considered the allegations as not proven due to lack of solid evidence, which could not be accepted. According to Article no.-6 of Part-1 of Gujarat Forest Manual, the delinquent is responsible for the overall management and protection of the forests which are falling in his Range. It is his responsibility to carry out plantation, to protect it, to carry out activities of Nursery, to do / get done the anticipatory works for plantation within time. It is his primary duty to make the payments if the work is done properly. As well as it is his initial duty to render his duty with honesty during his entire service tenure. But, he has failed to render his initial duty. This fact is also undoubted. Hence, the offence done by Mr. Pillai - R.F.O. is of a very serious type. After a prolonged procedure of Departmental Inquiry against Mr. Pillai - R.F.O., the following Punishment Orders have been passed vide the letters of this office ; 1) B/Adm/DPE/3/11491-98, Dt. 29/12/2003, (2) B/Adm/DPE/3/15911-16, Dt. 06/02/2004, (3) B/Adm/DPE/3/67/6534-40, Dt. 01/08/2005, The below mentioned punishment orders have been passed vide the said letter. Which are in continuation at present. 1. Rs. 7,590/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Five Hundred Ninety) shall be recovered from Mr. C.V. Pillai - R.F.O. 2. The entire period of Suspension from service shall be held as Suspension. 3. Two annual increments are closed permanently for further two years with effect on future due increments in the current pay scale of Range Forest Officer. After carrying out careful perusal upon the Appeal / Representation of Mr. C.V. Pillai - R.F.O. 2. The entire period of Suspension from service shall be held as Suspension. 3. Two annual increments are closed permanently for further two years with effect on future due increments in the current pay scale of Range Forest Officer. After carrying out careful perusal upon the Appeal / Representation of Mr. C.V. Pillai - R.F.O. (At present - A.C.F.) from 05/01/2008 to 05/02/2008, local case papers, Documentary evidences etc. on all the facts, the following partial updation is held in the said Punishment Order - : Amendment Order :- 1. Period of Suspension from service shall be held as Suspension but shall be considered as "on Duty" only for the purpose of Pension. 2. All the other conditions / sections of the Punishment Order shall remain same. (Dr. M. L. Sharma) Principal Chief Conservator of Forests Gujarat State, Gandhinagar” 7.1 Both the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. While considering the aforesaid charges, earlier the petitioner was compulsorily retired by order dated 01.08.2005 which was passed without issuance of notice to the petitioner and in view thereof, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.30100 of 2007 wherein, by order dated 14.12.2007, the said order of 01.08.2005 compulsorily retiring the petitioner was quashed and set aside. In view thereof, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has made written submissions before the respondent authorities. 8. Upon perusal of page 113/E of the impugned order dated 10.02.2009, it emerges that the petitioner herein made written submissions on 05.01.2008 and 05.02.2008, which are considered by the respondent authority. Further, it is also recorded that Mr. C.V. Pillai, R.F.O. has not produced any substantial evidence or reliable facts in his written representation. In fact, Mr. Pillai has availed himself of the above mentioned increasing sympathy by taking recourse to the Hon'ble Tribunal and Hon'ble High Court, the facts of which are on record. 8.1 Further, upon perusal of the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the competent authority, it emerges that the competent authority has taken into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner herein and passed the impugned order of punishment. 9. 8.1 Further, upon perusal of the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the competent authority, it emerges that the competent authority has taken into consideration the charges levelled against the petitioner herein and passed the impugned order of punishment. 9. Considering the aforesaid, it emerges that the petitioner herein was aware about the proceedings initiated by the respondent authority and had replied pursuant to the order passed in Special Civil Application No.30100 of 2007 dated 14.12.2007 in view thereof, it cannot be said that the respondent authority has not complied with Rule 152 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules. 9.1 With respect to the contention of delay, it is apposite to refer to the reply filed by the respondent authority wherein, the reasons for delay in passing the final order in the year 2009 is well explained by the respondent authority, which read thus: “4. I say and submit that in the year 1983, petitioner was working Forest as Range Forest Officer, Extension Range Umargam in Navasari Division. During the field visit of Conservator Of Forest, Bharuch Circule, several irregularities in advance work and nursery work were observed and accordingly he directed Dy. C.F. Navasari to enquire in to the matter. Since a prima facie case against the petitioner for misappropriation of Government money was noticed ,the petitioner was placed under suspension vide C.F. Office letter dated 16.09.1983. I further say and submit that thereafter the detailed inquiry was conducted and it was found that the petitioner has misappropriated Government money worth Rs. 50233.50 by preparing false vouchers without carrying out the advance works in the field. The petitioner was charge sheeted and departmental inquiry case was handed over to departmental inquiry officer. After having all legal formalities the case was completed and the departmental inquiry officer conducted the case and submitted the report on 31.01.1985. As per the report the charge no. 1 was partly proved and it was found that the advance work in Dehri and Govada village forests worth Rs. 7590/- were not carried out by Mr. Pillai and misappropriation of government money was proved. After receiving the report, show cause notice was served to Mr. Pillai and after receiving the reply from him, P.C.C.F. Gujarat State passed the order on 15/04/1986 as under: 1. Dismissal from Government Service 2. Recovery of Rs. 7590/- 3. Treating suspension period as a suspension. Pillai and misappropriation of government money was proved. After receiving the report, show cause notice was served to Mr. Pillai and after receiving the reply from him, P.C.C.F. Gujarat State passed the order on 15/04/1986 as under: 1. Dismissal from Government Service 2. Recovery of Rs. 7590/- 3. Treating suspension period as a suspension. It is seen from above that due procedure was followed and the order was passed accordingly. Aggrieved with above order, Shri Pillai approached the Hon'ble Tribunal and a case no. 565/1986 was admitted. The Hon'ble Tribunal passed a order on 07.12.1987 and set aside the order of the P.C.C.F and directed for a fresh departmental inquiry. 5. I state that a fresh department inquiry was given to D.E.O. and after conducting the inquiry, he submitted the report on 30.11.1990. As per this report both the charges were not proved. P.C.C.F. did not agreed with the D.E.O. 's report and as per the rules show cause notice dated 07.10.1992 was given to Mr. Pillai. The notice contained all the points which were not considered by D.E.O. but otherwise these points were relevant and important Shri Pillai did not reply to the show cause notice and approached the Hon'ble High Court and filed Special Civil Application No. 7798 of 1992 on 02.11.1992. The Hon'ble High Court has directed to complete the process following upon the show cause notice by the Disciplinary Authority within eight weeks. As per the Hon'ble Court's order P.C.C.F. has decided the case as under on 01.02. 1994. 1. Compulsory retirement from the government service. 2. Suspension period is to be treated as suspension. I further state that the above punishment order was inflicted as per the 10 (2) of the G.C.S.R. (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. So action on the part of P.C.C.F. is bonafide as per the rules and regulation. 6. I state that the petitioner has filed appeal no. 196 of 1994 in the Hon'ble Tribunal against the order dated 01.02.1994 from P.C.C.F. Gujarat State. The Hon'ble Tribunal passed the order dated 28.05.1997 and the order dated 01.02.1994 of P.C.C.F. was set aside, and the matter was remanded to P.C.C.F. for considering afresh decision form the stage of defect. Accordingly, Mr. Pillai was issued the show cause notice on 19.04.1999. After receiving the reply from Mr. Pillai P.C.C.F. issued ordered as under on 13.03.2000. 1. The Hon'ble Tribunal passed the order dated 28.05.1997 and the order dated 01.02.1994 of P.C.C.F. was set aside, and the matter was remanded to P.C.C.F. for considering afresh decision form the stage of defect. Accordingly, Mr. Pillai was issued the show cause notice on 19.04.1999. After receiving the reply from Mr. Pillai P.C.C.F. issued ordered as under on 13.03.2000. 1. Five annual increments are stopped with permanent effect. 2. Suspension period is to be treated as suspension. The above mentioned decision was taken after getting the reply and after considering all the facts raised by the petitioner, and he was also reinstated from : 13.03.2000. 7. I state that the punishment was inflicted after the departmental inquiry proceedings under rule 9 and 10 of Gujarat Civil Service ( Discipline and Appeal ) Rules, 1971 and due procedure in accordance with the law has been followed. Therefore, petition Para 5 is not true. 8. I state that the petitioner has filled an appeal on 13.09.2001 against the order of P.C.C.F. dated 13.03.2000. He has requested the P.C.C.F. to reduce quantum of punishment. Accordingly, P.C.C.F. has taken sympathetic view of the whole issue and a decision on 01.05.2002 was taken and as per that the suspension period was treated as duty period for the pension purpose and Rs. 50233 /- was to be recovered from him. I further state that the petitioner has filled the Special Civil Application No. 6294 of 2002 in Hon'ble High Court against the punishment order dated 01.05.2002 from P.C.C.F. Hon'ble Court has directed to give specific notice to the petitioner and opportunity of hearing shall also be given. Accordingly, he was issued fresh show cause notice on dated 02.04.2003 and enough opportunity was given to him for defence and hearing. After getting reply from the petitioner P.C.C.F. has revised the order on 29. 12. 2003 as under : 1. Recovery of Rs. 7590 /- 2. Suspension period is to be treated as suspension but it is to be treated as duty for the pension purpose. 3. Two annual increments are to be stopped with permanent effect. The petitioner has filed third Special Civil Application No. 30100 of 2007 in Hon'ble High Court, oral order of this Special Civil Application was given on 14.12.2007 and directed P.C.C.F. to hear the petitioner and take appropriate decision within three months. 3. Two annual increments are to be stopped with permanent effect. The petitioner has filed third Special Civil Application No. 30100 of 2007 in Hon'ble High Court, oral order of this Special Civil Application was given on 14.12.2007 and directed P.C.C.F. to hear the petitioner and take appropriate decision within three months. Accordingly, the petitioner has represented his case before P.C.C.F. on 05.01.2008, 05.02.2008, 04.04.2008 and 15.10.2008. After taking all these reorientations P.C.C.F. has decided the case as under on 10.02.009. 1. Suspension period is to be treated as duty for the purpose of pension only. 2. Rs. 7590/- is to be recovered. 3. Two annual increments to be stopped with permanent effect.” 9.2 With respect to the third aspect of promotion, upon perusal of chart duly produced at page 195 to the petition, it is not in dispute that while the other employees were promoted, at the relevant point of time, the disciplinary proceedings were in force against the petitioner herein and in view thereof, the petitioner would not have been promoted. However, upon reinstatement on 07.03.2000, upon completion of 9 years, the petitioner came to be promoted on 01.08.2007 as Assistant Conservator of Forest. 10. Reliance as placed by Mr. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner on the ratio laid down in case of in case of Ramsunder Shamlal vs. Y.B/ Jhala or his successor, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad & Ors., reported in 1999 (1) GLH 150 and in case of Kiritbhai Shankar Patel vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2019 (1) GLH 152 , is contrary to the record. In the facts of the present case, upon perusal of the service book placed on record, it emerges that the petitioner herein was paid 50% subsistence allowance starting from the date of suspension i.e. 01.10.1983. The petitioner was also paid 75% subsistence allowance on completion of 6 months of suspension from 01.04.1984. The petitioner is receiving 100% salary from 11.04.2000. Further, the petitioner paid the salary and other emoluments from the date of reinstatement i.e. 13.03.2000 to 10.02.2009. The petitioner came to be promoted w.e.f 01.08.2007 and the entry to the said effect is duly perused from the service book. Upon retirement, the petitioner is paid all the retirement benefits the table of which reads thus: Sr. Further, the petitioner paid the salary and other emoluments from the date of reinstatement i.e. 13.03.2000 to 10.02.2009. The petitioner came to be promoted w.e.f 01.08.2007 and the entry to the said effect is duly perused from the service book. Upon retirement, the petitioner is paid all the retirement benefits the table of which reads thus: Sr. No. Details Order Date Amount Page No. 1 Pension 06/04/2010 12,765/- 9 2 Gratuity 06/04/2010 5,13,926/- 9 3 Commuted Value of Pension 06/04/2010 5,96,105/- 9 4 Leave Encashment 13/08/2009 1,71,840/- 10 5 LTC 06/03/2009 11730/- 11 5 Town Traveling Allowance 02/09/2009 46,623/- 12 10.1 Further, reliance is also placed in case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the principles of natural justice are required to be followed and an opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to the delinquent. In the facts of the present case, it emerges that the petitioner herein appeared before the disciplinary authority and admittedly, replied in the said proceedings. In the opinion of this Court, the respondent authority has complied with the principles of natural justice and in view thereof, the aforesaid decision is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 10.2 Reliance is also placed by Mr. Divakaran, learned advocate, on the order passed in Special Civil Application No.13003 of 2013 dated 23.12.2016 wherein, in the facts of the said case, the inquiry is to be held vitiated from the stage when the disciplinary authority after recording the findings of disagreement with the inquiry report failed to issue show cause notice to the petitioner and straight away imposed penalty. The facts of the present case are distinct and in view thereof, the aforesaid decision is not applicable. 10.3 Further, reliance is also placed on the ratio laid down in case of Ramesh Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 781, [ (2015) 14 SCC 335 ] wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the facts of the said case, has directed the grant of promotion retrospectively. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was reinstated in service on 07.03.2000 and was granted promotion on 01.08.2007 as Assistant Conservator of Forest. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner herein was reinstated in service on 07.03.2000 and was granted promotion on 01.08.2007 as Assistant Conservator of Forest. In view thereof, no case is made out to direct grant of the retrospective promotion. 10.4 As discussed above, the decisions relied upon by Mr. Divakaran, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, are not applicable in the facts of the present case. Further, the delay is also explained by the respondent authority and in view thereof, delay cannot be attributed to the respondent authority. 11. At this stage, it is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sarvepalli Ramaiah (dead) as per legal representatives & Ors. vs. District Collector, Chittoor District & Ors., reported in (2019) 4 SCC 500 . Paragraphs 43 and 44 of the said decision read thus: “43. A decision may sometimes be set aside and quashed under Article 226 on the ground of illegality. This is when there is an apparent error of law on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision and/or in other words an apparent error, but for which the decision would have been otherwise. 44. Judicial review under Article 226 is directed, not against the decision, but the decision making process. Of course, a patent illegality and/or error apparent on the face of the decision, which goes to the root of the decision, may vitiate the decision making process. In this case there is no such patent illegality or apparent error. In exercise of power under Article 226, the Court does not sit in appeal over the decision impugned, nor does it adjudicate hotly disputed questions of fact.” 12. In absence of any error with respect to law having been committed by the respondent No.2 or any jurisdictional error committed by the respondent authority, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the impugned order dated 10.02.2009 passed by the respondent authority. No case is made out to exercise extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is accordingly, not entertained and the same is dismissed. Rule is discharged.