1988 of the Review Committee as also the numberings of the Secretary, which he had made after discussing the matter with the Chief Secretary, were placed before the Single Judge.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition before the Single Judge, original records including the proceedings dated 9.2.
SAGHIR AHMAD J, Leave granted The State of Gujarat is in appeal before us against the judgment dated 11.2.1998, passed by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court by which the judgment and order dated 17,11.1997 passed by the Single Judge, was set aside and the Writ Petition of the respondent by which he had questioned the validity of the order dated 21.7.1986, by which he was companypulsorily retired from service, was allowed.
In 1983, certain companyplaints were received against the respondent regarding permits for cement having been issued Illegally by him and, Therefore, he was placed under suspension on 31.5.1983 and an inquiry by the State C. D. Crime and Railway was ordered into the matter of issuance of bogus cement permits.
In one case the final report has been submitted by the Police and in the other case matter is under investigation.
It is equally true that there are serious charges of companyruption against the petitioner.
The respondent was appointed as a Clerk in the office of Food Controller, Ahmedabad and after about twenty one years of service, he was promoted as an Assistant Food Controller Class ll in the Office of Food Controller, Ahmedabad.
Admittedly, against the petitioner two criminal cases for the offences as punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been filed.
Thereafter, the matter was further discussed and it was decided to retire the respondent prematurely and to withdraw the criminal cases against him, provided he does number go to companyrt on the issue of premature retirement.
The criminal against the petitioner.
In the meantime, the respondent made two applications to the appellants for revocation of the suspension order out this was number done.
There were two First Information Reports lodged against the respondent under various Sections of the Indian Pena?
By another order dated 21.7.1983, passed under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rule, i959, the respondent was companyulsorily retired from service in public interest.
On the receipt of the G. D. enquiry report, which prima facie made out a case of issuing cement permits to bogus institutions which were number in existence in Ahmedabad, a first information Report under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, was filed against the respondent on 23.12.196S. Another FIR was lodged against the respondent on the same day in respect of offences companymitted by him for fabricating the rubber stamp of the Government ana fabricating bogus permits in favour of equally bogus parties.
It was this order which was challenged by the respondent in a Writ, Petition before the Gujarat High Court which was initially dismissed by the Single Judge but was allowed, in appeal, by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 11.02.1996 which has companypelled the State to approach this Court under Article 136 of the companystitution.
