JUDGMENT

P. S. KAILASAM, J.:— This appeal is preferred by special leave against the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat dated 13th August. 1976 dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of dismissal passed by the Government on 21st January, 1976.

2. The appellant B. J. Shelat was born on 4th December, 1918. He joined as a Magistrate on 5th January, 1950 in the pre-reorganized State of Bombay. On the bifurcation of the State of Bombay on 1st May, 1960 he was allotted to the State of Gujarat as a Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, First Class. On 4th November, 1961 the appellant was appointed by the Governor of Gujarat as a Magistrate for the city of Ahmedabad, On 9th November, 1970 the appellant gave a notice of retirement to the Government of Gujarat through the Registrar of the High Court. He intimated that as he had completed 50 years on 4th December, 1968 he intended to retire from 10th May, 1971 if R. 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules permitted him to do so. The Registrar of the High Court replied to this notice on 11th January, 1972 informing the appellant that he may send a fresh application on the lines of his application dated 9th November, 1970.

3. The appellant had delivered several judgments under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act during the period 24th January, 1972 to 17th August, 1972. These judgments were taken on appeal to the High Court and in the High Court during the period 19th June, 1973 to 10th August, 1973 the accused in the various cases relating to food adulteration filed affidavits alleging that they had paid some moneys to the appellant. When these appeals were pending before the High Court on 17th July, 1973 the appellant gave a second notice under R. 161 intimating his intention to retire on reaching the age of 55 year i.e. on 3rd December, 1973. But before 3rd December, 1973, the date on which the appellant was due to retire, the Chief City Magistrate, Ahmedabad, informed the petitioner on 23rd November, 1973 under the directions of the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court of Gujarat calling upon him to submit his explanation as regards allegations made in the affidavits. The appellant submitted his explanation on 26th November 1973. On 11th December, 1973, the High Court issued an order of suspension as the High Court was of the view that it was desirable to suspend the appellant pending finalisation of departmental proceedings against him which were under contemplation.

4. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Government to take disciplinary action against him after retirement. This petition was dismissed and a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed on 24th December, 1973. The appellant filed a special leave petition in this Court against the order of dismissal of his writ petition by the High Court and this Court on 25th April, 1975 allowed the appellant to withdraw his petition reserving his right to agitate the question as to whether disciplinary action can be taken against him after retirement when final orders were passed in the disciplinary inquiry against him. In the meantime a chargesheet was issued to the appellant by the High Court on 18th January, 1974 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 25th July, 1974 holding that the charges were not proved. But the High Court did not agree with the report of the Inquiry Officer and directed the appellant to show cause why a different view from that of the Inquiry Officer be not taken. On receipt of the appellants reply the High Court recommended the punishment of dismissal to the Government and the impugned order was passed by the Government on 21st January, 1976. The appellant preferred writ petition to the High Court and the High Court by its judgment dismissed it holding that there is evidence on which a reasonable inference of guilt could be drawn and therefore it could not interfere with the order of dismissal. Hence, the present