4.To meet with the stand taken by learned advocate
for the petitioner, Ms.Divyangna Jhala, learned
Assistant Government Pleader, has vehemently opposed
the petition and has submitted that the delay has
been well explained by the authority by way of filing
specific affidavit-in-reply. Learned AGP has
submitted that whenever there is a delay, on the
contrary, it is expected from the petitioner that
such delay has in what manner prejudiced the
petitioner. If that element of prejudice is not
pleaded by the petitioner then, that point of delay
would not be available to the petitioner. By
referring to Para.16 of the affidavit-in-reply, it
has also been contended that on account of one letter
issued by Shri D.S.Solanki, the then MLA to the
Hon’ble Minister, Irrigation Department dated
10.7.1991, whereby high level corruption was
projected and in that respect, the entire process has
been undertaken in which the petitioner found to have
committed an irregularity. As a result of this, since
the entire process has been initiated and concluded
after giving appropriate and adequate opportunity,
irrespective of delay, the charges which have been
established cannot be overlooked by the petitioner.
It has been submitted that here is a case in which
there is a serious charge levelled against the
petitioner and after satisfying that charge has been
proved against the petitioner, a conscious decision
is taken by the respondent authority which cannot be
assailed by the petitioner. Learned AGP has submitted
that since the inquiry is in close conformity with
