JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the Municipal Commissioner, Vadodara Municipal Corporation and prayed inter alia that:- “29(A) admit this petition; (B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 17.1.2011 as the same is violative of principles of natural justice, Article-14 of the constitution and the same is also violative of various rules and regulations; (B1) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and be pleased to quash and set aside the modified penalty order dated 3/5/2014, and direct the respondents to make good all the financial losses suffered by the petitioner till date. (C) grant stay of further operation, implementation and execution of the order dated 17/1/2011 pending the admission and final hearing of the petition; D) pass such orders as thought fit in the interest of justice." 2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner came to be appointed as Sub-Sanitary Inspector in Vadodara Municipal Corporation on 15.11.1973. In December 1983 he was promoted to Sanitary Inspector and then in 2001 he was promoted to Senior Sanitary Inspector. The petitioner was given all the three higher pay scales on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service. By order dated 4/4/2003 the petitioner was transferred in Health Branch and was given posting on the vacant post of Birth-Death Officer's Post. The said work attached to the post of Birth-Date Officer's Post was the additional work over and above the duties of Senior Sanitary Inspector which were being discharged by the petitioner when the order dated 4/4/2003 came to be passed. Thus, it is admitted fact that the petitioner was given additional charge for the post of Birth- Death Officer. The petitioner was also given additional charge of Additional Senior Sanitary Inspector for Ward No.3 which was all together additional charge for all together different post. Thus, the fact remains that the petitioner was given three charges, namely, (i) Charge for the Post of Senior Sanitary Inspector (Court matters); (ii) Charge of Birth and Death Officer's Post and (iii) Additional charge of Senior Sanitary Inspector's Post of Ward No.3. Thus, the fact remains that the petitioner was given three charges, namely, (i) Charge for the Post of Senior Sanitary Inspector (Court matters); (ii) Charge of Birth and Death Officer's Post and (iii) Additional charge of Senior Sanitary Inspector's Post of Ward No.3. 2.1 Thereafter, the petitioner was served with an order/communication dated 18/10/2004 by which the petitioner was placed under Suspension. The main ground of suspension was to the effect that the petitioner had failed to maintain the Birth- Death Register and has also failed to maintain and supervise the incidental record of Birth and Death and as the Departmental Inquiry was under contemplation, the petitioner was placed under Suspension vide order dated 18/10/2004. 2.2 Against the aforesaid order dated 18/10/2004 by which the petitioner was placed under Suspension, the petitioner had approached before this Court by preferring Special Civil Application No.4184/2005. The said Special Civil Application came to be disposed of by this Court by an order dated 16/3/2005. 2.3 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred representation, however, the concerned respondent authorities have rejected the same. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a communication/Notice dated 30/11/2004 in which the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the Disciplinary Proceedings under the provisions of Sec. 56(2) of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act be not initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 8/12/2004 and it was pointed-out that he had not indulged into any irregularity/ misconduct as alleged in the communication dated 30/11/2004. Thereafter, the respondent authorities sent a communication dated 3/6/2005 and along with the said communication, the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 3/6/2005. In all there were four charges were leveled against the petitioner. 2.4 Considering the nature of the allegations leveled in the said charge-sheet, certain relevant documents which were required to be supplied by the concerned authorities along with the charge-sheet, were not supplied along with the charge-sheet and as the same would have caused prejudice to the petitioner in submitting his reply/written statement pursuant to the said charge-sheet and therefore, the petitioner had sent communication dated 22/6/2005 and 8/7/2005 by which the petitioner requested the concerned authorities to give copies of the relevant documents. The petitioner had also requested to grant adjournment to enable him to file reply as he was not supplied with the necessary documents. The petitioner had also requested to grant adjournment to enable him to file reply as he was not supplied with the necessary documents. As the concerned respondent authorities have failed to supply necessary documents which were very much relevant for submitting reply/written statement and therefore, again the petitioner sent reminder as well as further communication dated 11/7/2005. On one hand the concerned respondent authorities have decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings and on another hand the respondent authorities have also filed FIR against the petitioner before Navapura Police Station which came to be registered as C.R.No. 139/2004 for the offences which came to be alleged in the FIR. As the petitioner was kept under suspension for considerable long time i.e. for 11 months, the respondent no.2 passed an order dated 6/9/2005 and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated in the service. The petitioner was never supplied with the relevant documents which were very much required by the petitioner to enable him to defend his case. Respondent no.2 authority conducted preliminary inquiry by recording statements of various employees/witnesses. The said preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Officer Shri Dhirenbhai Pandya who, even after recording various statements, including the statement of the present petitioner, had come to the conclusion that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct. The fact remains that the petitioner was never supplied with the Report of the Preliminary Inquiry which was prepared by Shri Dhirenbhai Pandya wherein the petitioner was exonerated. Thereafter, the respondent authorities appointed Shri Dhiren Pandya-Vigilance Officer as Inquiry Officer. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer was changed and ultimately one Bipinbhai Shah was appointed as Inquiry Officer by an order dated 25/11/2005. The said Inquiry Officer Bipinbhai Shah had conducted Departmental Inquiry and in fact the inquiry was concluded by him. The said Inquiry Officer Bipinbhai Shah had also prepared Inquiry Report and the same came to be submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. The inquiry was conducted by said Bipinbhai Shah as the petitioner remained present and the statement of Corporation Witness -Health Officer came to be recorded by the Inquiry Officer Shri Bipinbhai Shah. The petitioner had also cross-examined the corporation witness during the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry officer Bipinbhai Shah. Despite the Inquiry Report was prepared and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority by the Inquiry Officer Bipinbhai Shah, the petitioner was never given a copy of the same. The petitioner had also cross-examined the corporation witness during the inquiry proceedings conducted by the Inquiry officer Bipinbhai Shah. Despite the Inquiry Report was prepared and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority by the Inquiry Officer Bipinbhai Shah, the petitioner was never given a copy of the same. However, even after conclusion of the inquiry, instead of taking decision pursuant to the inquiry report submitted by the then Inquiry Officer Bipinbhai, for the reasons best known to the respondent authorities, the respondent authorities neither passed order in respect of rejection of inquiry report prepared by the Inquiry Officer Shri Bipinbhai Shah nor the Disciplinary Authority passed an order in respect of approval granted to the inquiry report, as, in both the circumstances, the petitioner would have been served with a communication from the Disciplinary Authorities in this regard. However, the fact remains that the petitioner was never served with any communication by the Disciplinary Authority in this regard and straightway passed the order, as aforesaid, dated 19/3/2008, and the concerned respondent authorities have appointed all together new Inquiry Officer, namely, Shri Vasava for conducting the Departmental Inquiry (Assistant Commissioner). After completion of all the formalities and considering the defence statement of the petitioner, the concerned respondent authorities have passed the order dated 17.1.2011 and placed the petitioner in the minimum scale of Rs.9300-34800 and further decision has been taken to the effect that the period of suspension would be considered only for the purpose of pension and gratuity only which would make it clear the said period would not be considered as the period on duty as well as other consequential benefits. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner has preferred present petition. 3. It appears that by way of order dated 17.1.2011 passed by the respondent authority, the petitioner was placed in his original cadre and in the minimum scale of Rs.9300- 34800 and also further decision has been taken to the effect that the period of suspension was considered for the purpose of continuity of service and gratuity only. 4. The said order was subsequently modified by order dated 3.5.2014 and by the said order the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. 5. Heard Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. 4. The said order was subsequently modified by order dated 3.5.2014 and by the said order the petitioner was imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect subject to the final outcome of the criminal proceedings. 5. Heard Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner and other four persons were charged for issuance of false and fabricated death certificate and therefore, the chargesheet came to be issued against present petitioner whereby, the petitioner was found guilty and therefore, the impugned punishment order came to be passed. 7. Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pending hearing of present petition, this Court has directed the petitioner vide order dated 13.7.2012 to make appropriate representation since the petitioner was not granted proper opportunity of hearing before passing final punishment order by the disciplinary authority. The said order dated 13.7.2012 read as under:- "1.0 By way of this application, the application has prayed as under: (A) Your Lordships may be pleased to grant stay against any further implementation and operation of penalty order dated 17/07/2011 during the pendency of Special Civil Application No. 11119/2011. (B) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent Corporation to correct the mistake while implementing the penalty and place the applicant on his stage one from stage sixth on which he was in this existing pay scale at the time of imposing penalty order without taking away any increments, he earned in the previous payscale. 2.0 No interim relief was granted in the main matter being Special Civil Application No. 1119 of 2011. 3.0 As far as prayer (A) is concerned, it will not be appropriate for this Court grant any relief since no interim relief was granted while admitting Special Civil Application No. 1119 of 2011. 4.0 As far as prayer (B) is concerned, the petitioner shall make representation to the concerned authority. If such representation is made by the petitioner, concerned respondent authority is directed to considered the representation of the petitioner and decide same within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the representation. 5.0 With the above observation, application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted." 7.1 Mr. If such representation is made by the petitioner, concerned respondent authority is directed to considered the representation of the petitioner and decide same within a period of three months from the date of the receipt of the representation. 5.0 With the above observation, application stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted." 7.1 Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after considering the documentary evidence and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, the impugned order was subsequently amended by the respondent corporation, which is against the principle of natural justice and against the facts of the present case and therefore, impugned order imposing punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect is arbitrary, unjust and deserves to be set aside. 7.2 Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry against all the five persons including the petitioner was conducted and Vigilance Officer has also inquired into the matter, whereby the Vigilance Officer found the petitioner was innocent however, reason best known to the corporation, punishment order was passed only against present petitioner which suggests malafide and arbitrariness on the part of the corporation and therefore, the impugned order of punishment passed by the corporation is illegal, arbitrary and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 7.3 Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is specific detailed findings of the Vigilance Officer, whereby the petition was found innocent from the record itself. He has further submitted that the Vigilance Officer after scrutiny of the plethora of document and record as well as after going through the oral examination of witnesses has come to a conclusion that all the five persons against whom charges are levelled are found innocent and there was no evidence with regard to the involvement of the said persons in the alleged fabrication or forgery of issuance of the bogus death certificate and therefore, the impugned order is against the facts of the present case and against the record of the Vigilance Officer and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has further submitted that he impugned order imposing punishment upon the petitioner on 3.5.2014 is violative of fundamental rights provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7.4 Mr. He has further submitted that he impugned order imposing punishment upon the petitioner on 3.5.2014 is violative of fundamental rights provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 7.4 Mr. Shakeel A. Qureshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner had prayed for about 15 documents from the inquiry officer, out of that only certain documents, which were referred to and relied upon by the respondent in the affidavit-inreply were supplied to the petitioner and no other documents were supplied and therefore, the petitioner has lost his reasonable opportunity to make his case good before the disciplinary authority and therefore, this is against the principle of natural justice as the the respondent has not provided the relevant documents which are referred to and relied upon by the inquiry officer, while recording the impugned order of punishment. 8. Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised objection against the present petition. Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents. 8.1 Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that after going through the record and the fact that the petitioner is involved in serious offence of forgery by issuing bogus death certificate in the name of the person who is alive, a criminal proceedings initiated against the present petitioner and the same is pending before this Court by way of quashing petition. 8.2 Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the allegations are serious in nature and after considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner during the course of the inquiry and considering his written submission, the corporation has considered leniency in the case of the petitioner while imposing punishment of minor penalty and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in the present petition. 8.3 Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that now it is well settled that in the case of imposition of quantum of punishment, the Court has very limited scope to interfere in the order of punishment while exercising the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8.4 Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the averments made in paragraph Nos. 8.4 Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has also relied upon the averments made in paragraph Nos. 6, 7 and 8 of the affidavit-in-reply which reads as under:- "6. I say that the petitioner was found to be involved into the serious misconduct of issuing bogus death certificate by sting operation conducted by the journalist of Savera India Times by accepting bribe of Rs. 5000. Relying upon the report of the enquiry officer criminal complainant was lodged by the in charge Medical Officer of Health Dr. Dilip Ansari against the concerned persons including the present petitioner, which is awaiting it's final outcome. However, since this Hon'ble Court has stayed further proceedings by order passed in Misc. Criminal Application no. 10155/2004, it's final outcome is awaited. Taking into consideration seriousness of the misconduct of the petitioner, a fullfledged departmental enquiry was conducted by the Respondent Corporation. After following principles of natural justice, and after providing full opportunity to the petitioner, and examining witnesses, and relying upon the evidence including documentary evidence, final report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, and thereafter lastly the impugned order dated 17.1.2011 (Annex. R page 111 to the petition) was passed by the Municipal Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner. Therefore the same being passed after full fledged enquiry which was conducted by following due procedure prescribed under the law, may not be interfered by this Hon'ble Court in it's extra ordinary jurisdiction vested in it under the Constitution of India. 7. I further say that the charges leveled against the petitioner, charges 1 to 4 are clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt supported with the oral as well as documentary evidence. That the petitioner was also given opportunity by personal hearing on 2.11.2010 finally before passing final order of punishment. Therefore during the entire proceedings the respondent corporation has followed due procedure of law established under the relevant provisions of law along with the basic and fundamental principles of service jurisprudence. Therefore the same does not suffer from any vices as alleged or otherwise. 8. As regards the allegations of non supply of preliminary interim reports, I say that the final order of awarding punishment dated 17.1.2011 is passed relying upon the final report of the enquiry officer and not upon the preliminary report either of Shri Bipin Shah or Shri Dhiren Pandya. Therefore such allegations are baseless having no importance. 8. As regards the allegations of non supply of preliminary interim reports, I say that the final order of awarding punishment dated 17.1.2011 is passed relying upon the final report of the enquiry officer and not upon the preliminary report either of Shri Bipin Shah or Shri Dhiren Pandya. Therefore such allegations are baseless having no importance. That the respondent corporation has also taken into consideration carefully the reply dated 20/8/2010 (Annex. Q) before passing impugned order. Therefore the allegations as to non application of mind are baseless." 8.5 Considering the above, Mr. Haresh J. Trivedi, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has prayed that the petition is devoid of merits and same requires to be dismissed as the petitioner is not entitled for any leniency as after considering all the facts, the petitioner was imposed very minimum punishment and therefore, no interference is required to be called for in present petition. 9. I have considered the material available on record. I have also gone through the relevant papers placed in the petition. 10. The controversy involved in present petition is that whether the punishment imposed by the inquiry officer and disciplinary authority against present petitioner can be interfered with. In my view, in normal circumstances, it is now well settled that in the case of quantum of punishment, this Court has very limited power and the scope and ambit of the interference in punishment is very less as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court. 11. However, considering the peculiar facts of the present case and considering the records it seems that present petition requires interference, merely on the ground that the Vigilance Officer appointed by the corporation itself to inquire into the matter with regard to allegations made against petitioner along with the others and after going through the details and the plethora of documents and after examining the witnesses, the Vigilance Officer has prepared the report which is annexed at page 147 to 188, wherein the the Vigilance Officer has specifically come to a conclusion that against all the 5 persons involved in so called case of the forgery by issuing bogus death certificate in favour of the person who is alive, there was no evidence to that effect and they are found innocent. Further, there was a specific averments made by the Vigilance Officer that the corporation has not taken any action against the person whose prima facie involvement was found in the incident from the record itself. Even the Inquiry Officer has come to a specific findings that the petitioner was innocent in the allegation made against him. 12. After considering all this facts and the report of the Vigilance Officer appointed by the corporation, I am of the opinion that in present case, the interference is required to be called for. Normally, this Court does not interfere in the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority vis-a-vis in the case of imposition of quantum of punishment however, considering the specific facts of the present case and considering the fact that here the respondent corporation itself has appointed the Vigilance Officer and the Vigilance Officer has inquired the matter in detailed and submitted his report of 48 pages and thereafter, after considering all these facts and details, the Inquiry Officer has recorded the findings to that effect, in my opinion the order of imposition of penalty or even stoppage of one increment is also against the principle of natural of justice and it is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the impugned order of imposition of the punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect deserves to be quashed and set aside. 13. Hence, in view of the above discussion, the impugned order of imposition of the punishment of stoppage of one increment with future effect is hereby quashed and set aside. 14. It is also relevant to note herein that the petitioner is retired from the service and therefore, the respondent authority is hereby directed to pay all the consequential benefits, for which the petitioner is entitled to and from the date on which, he was imposed the penalty i.e. 3.5.2014 till the date of his retirement. Accordingly, appropriate modification be made in his pensionary benefit and if any retiral benefit due and payable including the arrears is withheld by the respondent authority then the same be paid immediately within period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. 15. With the aforesaid observations, present petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.