Judgment

Mohapatra, J.-Leave granted.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The main question that arises for consideration in this case is whether, on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Gauhati sHigh Court had juris­diction to entertain adndecide the writ petition filed by the respond­ent. Another question which also arises is whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the High Court was right in quashing teh First Information Reports lodged against the respondent.

3. The factual backdrop of the case relevant for the present proceed­ings may be stasted thus :

The respondent who is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service was officiating as Collector, Daman, as the regular incumbent was on leave and he continued as In-charge Collector from Octorber, 1992 to April 1993. He was transferred to Arunachal Pradesh in March, 1994. Prior to the transfer of the respondent, three First Information Reports were lodged with the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 29.9.1993 which were numbered as RC 64 (A)/93-BOM and RC 65(A)/93-BOM, RC 66(A)/93-BOM containing allegatio;ns, inter alia, that the respond­ent and one Tapas Neogi, Architect and Tow