( 1 ) THE petitioner, a former Civil Judge (S. D.), has challenged the order of his compulsory retirement by the State Government on the recommendation of the High Court made on 23rd December 1982 pursuant to the departmental inquiry held against the petitioner in which he was found guilty of the charges of dereliction of duty in making an order dated 30th October 1982 on an application made under Section 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code for returning the muddamal - oil barrels to the complaint. The petitioner had also challenged the validity of the Resolution No. 3 passed at the Chamber Meeting held on 26-12-1988 on the ground that it was ultra vires the provisions of Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Under the said Resolution, it is provided that, on the report of the disciplinary committee comprising of the Honble Judges of the Court, along with the entire record of the inquiry, including the written submissions of the delinquent in response to the show cause notice for the proposed punishment, being laid for 48 hours on the table before the High Court, it would become the decision of the High Court. At the outset of the hearing, the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner stated that the petitioner did not press for the challenge against the provisions of the said Resolution No. 3 of the Rules of Business of the High Court and the prayers made in Clauses 36 (A) and and 36 (G), challenging the said Resolution, were expressly given up at the instance of the petitioner. All the averments made in that context made in the petition were also expressly given up. Brief facts :

( 2 ) THE petitioner came to be appointed as Civil Judge (J. D.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class on probation for a period of two years by order dated 10-12-1981 and was posted at Jamnagar. A Criminal Misc. Application No. 97 of 1982 came to be filed on 19-10-1982 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, at Jamnagar, by the Manager of a Trust named Ramdev Oil Mill, of Jamnagar against the three accused persons, who were the officers of the Civil Supplies Department, for the offences under Sections 390, 391, 166 read with Sections 34 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code on an allegation that, on the night between 30-9-1982 and 1-10-1982, at about 12. 30 a. m. , the accused No. 1 alongwith his persons had, under the guise of search and seizure, keeping police with him and without a warrant, given threats and created a spurious search and seizure order. It was stated in paragraph 3 of the complaint, which is in the vernacular, that the Trust had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 863 of 1982 on 1-10-1982 against the search and seizure order made by the accused No. 1 on 1-10-1982 in which the Court had granted injunction in the terms which were reproduced in the said paragraph. As per the said order of injunction issued by the Civil Court, the accused No. 1 and his agents and servants were restrained from implementing the seizure order dated 1-10-1982 and were also required not to treat the stock of goods as seized and were restrained from preventing the plaintiff from dealing with the goods or selling them. It was then alleged in paragraph 4 of the complaint that the accused persons were in the know of the said order of interim injunction dated 1-10-1982 (in fact, it was dated 4-10-1982), passed by the Civil Judge (S. D.) as they were issued the notice of that order. It was further stated in paragraph 5 of the complaint that the accused persons, in violation of the order of the Court, which was known to them and ignoring the law, with a view to harass the trustees and cause them malicious harm, and though they had no reasonable ground, authority or power, committed robbery of 45 barrels of oil while they were being carried in a truck, in furtherance of their common intention and by abetting each other, giving threats at the point of a revolver, and that these accused were pilfering oil from the barrels and appro