Aggrieved by that judgment, the State has pre ferred this Criminal appeal.
Thereupon, the respondent filed Writ Petition No.
30th April 1988 by G.O.Rt.
7/ACB Cr.
The Anti Corruption Bureau after companypleting its investigation submitted its report on 22.4.1987 to its DirectorGeneral who in turn sent the same to the Government on 17.9.
However, by subsequent order dated 5th July 1985, the appellant State Government cancelled the aforesaid order dated 5th Septem ber 1984 and directed the respondent to show cause as to why the penalty of companypulsory retirement should number be imposed on him.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred a Special Leave Petition Civil No.
The said order reads as follows Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and specialty in view of the facts that the respondent has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, we do number companysider it a fit case for interference.
The Tribu nal allowed the petition holding that the impugned order in O.Rt.
In the meantime, the respondent filed the criminal petition for quashing further proceedings pursuant to the registration of the First Information Re port, inter alia, companytending that there had been lull in the investigation for fairly long spell causing inordinate delay and that the prosecution had number filed its report companytem plated under Section 173 Cr.
2930 dated 5th July 1985 is illegal and beyond the powers of the State Government.
Accordingly, the respondent was allowed to retire peacefully from service on attaimng the age of superannuation.
7/ACB Cr.
C Depart ment dated 5th July 1985 as arbitrary and unconstitutional, and companysequently to set aside the same by holding that the appellant was bound to give effect to the Orders companytained in G.O. Rt.
The First Information Report and the companysequent proceedings on the registration of the case were quashed by the High Court on 29.7.1988.
359 of 1989.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J. The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Director, Anti Corruption Bureau, Hydera bad has filed this criminal appeal challenging the companyrect ness of the Order dated 29.7.1988 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Crime No.
The State Government on the basis of the enquiry report passed orders for stopping further action and directed re instatement of the respondent into service with immediate effect by Order dated 5th September 1984.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.1988 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Crl.
525 and 526 dated 16.9.
The Government accorded the necessary sanction for prosecution in G.O.Ms.
This writ petition was transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench.
1984 in Crime No.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
C Department dated 5th Sep tember 1984.
405 of 1987 before this Court, and this Court by its Order dated 16.11.1988 dismissed the same.
Accord ingly, he was re instated and allowed to function as Con troller, Weights Measures, Andhra Pradesh.
P.C. till he filed the petition for quashing the proceedings in November 1987 though the case was registered even in March 1984.
Petition No.
II/84 under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 e of the prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on the allegations that while function ing as Commissioner of Police and later as Vice Chairman of Andhra Pradesh Housing Board during the years 1978 82, he ingulged in companyrupt practices and acquired immovable assets either in his name or in the name of his wife.
The plea of the respondent was stoutly resisted by the appellant stating that the delay was occasioned on account of the dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent and the case was a companyplicated and timeconsuming one.
A few facts relevant to decide this case may be stated The respondent was selected to the Indian Police Service in the year 1953 and he worked in various capacities at different places.
Madhava Reddy and G. Prabhakar for the Appellant.
While he was working as Commissioner of Weights Measures, Government of Andhra Pradesh, on a report dated 7.3.
II/84 dated 8.3.1984 on the file of the Special Judge for ACB SPE quashing the First Information Report in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
1984 submitted by the Deputy Superintend ent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, a case was registered against him on 8.3.
1023 of 1987.
S. Gururaj Rao, Subodh Markandeya, Mrs. C. Markandeya, A. Nomani and G. Seshagiri Rao for the Respondent.
Admittedly, the appellant numberified the date of retire ment of the respondent w.e.f.
866 dated 10th March 1988.
10670 of 1985 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the orders of the appellant companytained in G.O. Rt.
