JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs : “(A) Admit and allow the present petition. (B) Directing respondent/s and particularly respondent no.2, APMC, Dhoraji, to reinstate in service with immediate effect among with arrears and all consequential benefits attached to his post in view of the orders passed by respondent competent authorities annexed at Annexure A and B to this petition; (C) During pendency and or final disposal of the present petition, your lordships may be pleased to direct respondent/s and particularly respondent no.2, APMC, Dhoraji, to reinstate in service with immediate effect among with arrears and all consequential benefits attached to his post in view of the orders passed by respondent competent authorities annexed at Annexure A and B to this petition; (D) Your Lordships may further be pleased to hold and declare tha the inaction and indecision on the part of respondents and particularly APMC, Dhoraji by not complying orders passed by the competent authorities is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner, arbitrary, discriminatory and this violative of article 14 of the Constitution of India and hence illegal and unconstitutional. (G) Any other and further orders in the interest of justice may be passed.” 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : 2.1 The petitioner was serving as permanent clerk in Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhoraji, District, Rajkot since 28.8.86. During his tenure and since last about more than 10 years, petitioner was also delegated charge of in- charge accountant by respondent No. 2 Committee. Therefore petitioner was handling dual charges i.e one of Clerk and another of incharge accountant. That the petitioner has studied upto SSC and the respondent APMC, Dhoraji, inspite of being fully aware about the education qualification of the petitioner with full conscious mind gave him a charge of incharge accountant though he was not eligible for the said post as well as loaded him with the burden of two charges i.e posts. That the entire supervision of the incharge accountant, which was delegated to him was supervised by the Secretary and Chairman who also signed and approved the documents as well as accounts. That the entire supervision of the incharge accountant, which was delegated to him was supervised by the Secretary and Chairman who also signed and approved the documents as well as accounts. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that during his tenure of service as Clerk as well as incharge accountant, i.e. between 01.04.2008 to 31.03.2010, the audit of APMC was carried out in May 2010 and the auditor found some temporary misappropriation for which petitioner was held responsible. The temporary misappropriation was to the tune of Rs.1,73,702/- which was immediately paid by the petitioner by way of cheque to APMC, Dhoraji. On being held responsible for such temporary misappropriation, the Market Committee resolved to suspend the petitioner and to initiate departmental action against him. The petitioner was served with the charge- sheet dated 14.8.2010 by the Market Committee leveling allegations against him for temporary misappropriation. The petitioner responded to the said charges and allegations by his reply dated 25.08.2010. Thereafter, by an order dated 14.09.2010, the respondent Market Committee passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service on the basis of the note of Chairman and enquiry report holding him guilty of temporary misappropriation. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the respondent No.2 Market Committee, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 69 of 2010 before the Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance, which came to be allowed by the Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance directing the respondent Market Committee to reinstate the petitioner by an order dated 05.03.2011. 2.4 Being dissatisfied by the order passed by the Director allowing the appeal of the petitioner, the respondent Market Committee preferred Revision Application No. 105 of 2011 before the Dy.Secretary (Appeals) before the State Government, which came to be dismissed by the Dy. Secretary and thus the order of reinstatement passed by the Director, Agriculture Marketing and Rural Finance stood confirmed. The petitioner, however, inspite of succeeding before the two competent authorities of the State Government has not been reinstated inspite of concurrent findings and representation preferred by the petitioner in this regard. The petitioner therefore challenges such prejudicial act, inaction and indecision on the part of respondent Market Committee by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The petitioner therefore challenges such prejudicial act, inaction and indecision on the part of respondent Market Committee by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard learned advocate Ms.Mamta Vyas, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Jay Trivedi, appearing on behalf of the respondent – State Authorities and learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Dhoraji. 4. Learned advocate Ms.Vyas has submitted that pending the present petition, the petitioner has passed away and therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner have been brought on record vide order dated 22.06.2022 passed by this Court. She has submitted that the inaction, indecision and the act of not to reinstate the petitioner inspite of concurrent findings and orders passed by the competent authorities on the part of the respondent Market Committee is arbitrary, irrational, illegal and unconstitutional and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. She has further submitted that the petitioner was in service with APMC, Dhoraji since last 24 years and during his long tenure, he had never committed such an act of misappropriation and had accepted his mistake. She has further submitted that the petitioner was working as Clerk and was also delegated additional charge of incharge-accountant and the same was supervised by the Chairman and Secretary of APMC, Dhoraji, however, the Chairman and Secretary being the administrator and equally responsible, they had not been held responsible and instead of that the present petitioner was made a scapegoat. 4.1 Learned advocate Ms.Vyas has submitted that the alleged act of temporary misappropriation was committed on account of huge load of work on the petitioner and on account of two charges of dual posts. However, the very accounts were also verified and supervised by the Chairman and Secretary who signed and approved the same. She has submitted that the amount of alleged temporary misappropriation was never utilized by the petitioner for his personal motive at any point of time, moreover, the petitioner possessed qualification of clerk and not of an accountant. She has further submitted that both the authorities viz. She has submitted that the amount of alleged temporary misappropriation was never utilized by the petitioner for his personal motive at any point of time, moreover, the petitioner possessed qualification of clerk and not of an accountant. She has further submitted that both the authorities viz. Director and Secretary, Agriculture Marketing & Rural Finance, have rightly come to the conclusion and concurred with the same findings in favour of the present petitioner and hence, the respondent Market Committee is required to comply with the orders of reinstate the petitioner. She has submitted that the APMC has challenged the order of the State Government rejecting the revision application before this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.9083 of 2012, wherein, no stay order has been granted by this Court and nor the petitioner was reinstated in service and paid the salary or subsistence allowances. Therefore, the present petition is preferred by the petitioner and thereafter, the petitioner was reinstated only on 19.09.2013, thereby, the petitioner is entitled for the salary from 05.03.2011 to date of reinstatement i.e. 19.09.2013. Over and above, the petitioner was not paid the subsistence allowance. She has submitted that the petitioner passed away while in service on 13.04.2021, insipte of that, the petitioner is not paid the dues. Therefore, the learned advocate Ms.Vyas has urged that the present petition be allowed and the respondent APMC be directed to pay the dues to the legal heirs of the petitioner. 5. As against that, the learned advocate Mr.Premal Joshi appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 – APMC, has opposed the present petition and submitted that the petitioner has been rightly dismissed from service on the basis of the note of Chairman and enquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of temporary misappropriation. He has therefore, urged that the present petition be dismissed. 5. I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. Considering the fact that there were allegations against the present petitioner with regard to temporary misappropriation of the amount but, when it came to the knowledge of the auditor while auditing the accounts, he had raised objection and on such objections being raised by the auditor, the petitioner had immediately re-deposited the amount which was alleged to have been siphoned away by the petitioner. Even the criminal complaint was also registered against the petitioner, wherein the petitioner was acquitted from the charges levelled against him, and the said criminal complaint was not culminated into criminal trial. Thereafter, the petitioner was removed from the service by the respondent APMC by an order dated 14.09.2010. However, the petitioner was reinstated in service on 19.09.2013 on the basis of the order passed by this Court and till date the petitioner has not been paid his dues. Therefore, the petitioner had made representation before the respondent APMC to pay all his retiral dues including gratuity, leave encashment and all other retiral benefits. At the time of considering the representation made by the petitioner, the respondent APMC has deducted the amount which was alleged to have been siphoned away by the petitioner and paid only Rs.1,59,627/-, instead of total amount for which the petitioner was entitled. 6. Considering the submissions canvassed by both the sides and considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the same is hereby allowed and the petitioner is entitled to the amount towards gratuity, leave encashment and PF. The calculation of the total amount due and payable to the petitioner is as under : Point No. Point Remaining Amount to be paid 1 Remaining Salary for Cash Period 3,74,780/- 2 Remaining Amount as per Earned Leave 2,58,905/- 3 Remaining Amount of Gratuity 11,14,125/- 4 Allowances for Suspended Period 1,48,346/- Total Amount Rs. 18,96,156/- Details of P.F. of Mr. A. I. Pathan Month Amount Rs. Remaining P.F. upto March-2003 2,73,451/- + Employee P.F. from April-2003 to March-2021 +4,38,045/- + Institute P.F. from April-2003 to March-2021 +4,38,045/- + Employee Interest +1,03,324/- + Institute Interest +1,03,324/- Total Sum 13,56,189/- - minus withdrawal Withdrawal of April-2003 - 1,80,000/- Withdrawal of August-2017 - 3,00,000/- Withdrawal of October-2020 - 4,57,000/- Remaining of March-2021 4,19,189/- 6.1 The respondent APMC is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.23,15,345/- (Rs.18,96,156/- + Rs.4,19,189/-) to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Since the petitioner has passed away pending the petition, the aforesaid amount be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased petitioner who are on record. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.