1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners-appellants have challenged the charge-sheet dated (Annexure-1), circulars dated 13.7.2001 and 3.9.2001 and also the order issued by the Irrigation Department and prayed that these charge-sheet, Circulars and the order should be quashed.

3. Learned Single Judge while dealing with the charge-sheet has given option to the individual petitioner-appellant to challenge that charge-sheet in their individual capacity. So far the decision regarding circulars issued on a policy decision, it was held that the Government Servants whose career was tainted with the charge of embezzlement of Governments funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government or serious financial irregularities, they should not be given the field posting or the posting where they are in touch with the public.

4. Learned Single Judge has considered some decisions of the other High Courts and concluded as under:

"It is now well settled by the decisions of Apex Court that it is neither within the domain of the courts nor the scope of Judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise or better public policy can be invoked. Nor are the Courts inclined to strike down the policy at the behest of petitioners merely because it has been urged that a different policy would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical.

The policy decision taken by Government for the Government servants whose career is tainted with the charge of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of irregularities not to post them on the postings involving direct contact with the public or handling of cash, cannot be said to be arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable or against the constitutional and legal provisions."

5. When the policy decision has been taken that the Government Servants whose career is tainted with the charge of embezzlement of Government funds, misappropriation of funds, causing financial loss to the State Government, if they are not posted in the place, where they are in public touch, we see no infirmity in this policy. We agree with the learned Single Judge that the policy is not arbitrary.

6. Considering these facts, we see no substance in these appeals.

7. Consequently these appeals stand dismissed at admission stage.

8. Since, the appeals have been dismissed, the stay applications connected therewith also stand rejected.Appeal dismissed.

*******