JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant, a former employee of the Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramodyog, has prayed for the following reliefs; "(A) a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted quashing and setting aside the impugned order of punishment dated 2.1.2001, which is at Annexure-A to the petition, imposing punishment of compulsory retirement and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Executive Officer with respondent Board with full backwages and all consequential benefits; (B) pending admission hearing and final disposal of this petition this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the implementation, execution and operation of the impugned order of punishment dated 2.1.2001 at Annexure-A and direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to perform his duties as Executive Officer with the respondent Board; (C) grant such other and further reliefs as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. The case of the writ applicant may be summarized as under; 2.1 The writ applicant joined the services of the Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramodyog Board (for short "the Board") on 17th January, 1991. His appointment was under section 7(1) of the Bombay Khadi Village Industries Act, 1960. His appointment was as an Executive Officer of the Board. 2.2 The Board created the Gujarat Khadi Gramodhyog Marketing Trust. According to the constitution of the said trust, the Chairman of the Board would be the Chairman of the trust. The powers to appoint any person in the said trust were delegated to the Chairman pursuant to the resolution passed by the Board dated 3rd October, 1980. The Chairman was considered as the appointing authority in view of Rule 2 of the Gujarat Rajya Khadi & Gramodhyog Board Officers and Servants (Promotion & Recruitment) Rules, 1973. 2.3 The writ applicant, while in service of the Board as an Administrative Officer and also as the Managing Director of the trust, was served with two departmental charge-sheets dated 10th August, 1999 and 21st September, 1999 respectively. 2.3 The writ applicant, while in service of the Board as an Administrative Officer and also as the Managing Director of the trust, was served with two departmental charge-sheets dated 10th August, 1999 and 21st September, 1999 respectively. The charge-sheet dated 10th August, 1999 was issued, containing the following charges; (i) In addition to the discharge of duties and functions as an Administrative Officer, the writ applicant was also performing the duties as the Managing Director of the Gujarat Khadi Gramodhyog Marketing Trust. At that time, from the Vadhvan Puni Plant, in all, 41,410/- kg of the processed "Puni" came to be sold directly through the forged bills. The writ applicant was negligent in taking the necessary care and precautions in that regard. (ii) Although an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was received by the writ applicant towards the honorarium as the Managing Director of the trust, yet he exhibited negligence and carelessness in his work. (iii) Being the Managing Director of the Gujarat Khadi Gramodhyog Marketing Trust, he visited the "Puni Plant" every month, but omitted to verify the stock of the cotton bales. (iv) While discharging his duties as the Managing Director of the Trust, he left the country without the necessary permission of the Chairman of the Board. 2.4 To the aforesaid charges, the writ applicant submitted his reply dated 6th December, 1999. 2.5 According to the instructions dated 30th July, 1999 issued by the Government of Gujarat, Industries and Mines Department, Gandhinagar, one Shri J.P. Mehta, retired Deputy Secretary, was appointed as an Inquiry Officer for conducting the departmental inquiry. 2.6 On 21st September, 1999, one another charge-sheet came to be issued, containing the following charges; (i) The State Government, vide its resolution No. GMU/1078/4599-B dated 12th August, 1997 resolved to provide subsidy on the sale of "Gujarat Khadi & Poly Vastra". The writ applicant, under his signature, issued a circular dated 14th August, 1997 by deleting the word "Gujarat" without any authority and contrary to the Government Resolution dated 12th August, 1997. As a result, the benefit of the subsidy on the sale was extended to the other States too, thereby rendering the State Government to suffer financial loss. The writ applicant, under his signature, issued a circular dated 14th August, 1997 by deleting the word "Gujarat" without any authority and contrary to the Government Resolution dated 12th August, 1997. As a result, the benefit of the subsidy on the sale was extended to the other States too, thereby rendering the State Government to suffer financial loss. (ii) The Government of Gujarat, vide its resolution No. GMU/1088/4599-B dated 2nd October, 1997 resolved to provide the additional rebate on the sale of the "Gujarat Khadi and Poly Vastra" as a part of the celebration of the Gandhi Jayanti dated 2nd October. Although on the file of the Board, a noting was made to give the additional rebate on the sale in Gujarat, yet the writ applicant, under his signature, issued a circular dated 7th October, 1997 by deleting the word "Gujarat" and forwarded the same to all the institutions, as a result, the Government had to suffer the financial loss. 2.7 With regard to the aforesaid, one Shri C.K. Desai was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. 2.8 The two Inquiry Officers concluded the inquiries and filed their respective replies. They reached to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the writ applicant stood proved and established. 2.9 The two inquiry reports were placed before the Board and the Board decided to terminate the services of the writ applicant by imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement as provided in Rule 6 of the Gujarat State Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. 2.10 The impugned order dated 2nd January, 2001, imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the free English translation of the same reads as under; "That vide Reference No. 1 and Ref. No. 4 notices cited above, Sri Joitabhai A. Patei, Administrative Officer, Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board was issued the statement of allegations and in response to which the defence statements were submitted by him before the Board. No. 4 notices cited above, Sri Joitabhai A. Patei, Administrative Officer, Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board was issued the statement of allegations and in response to which the defence statements were submitted by him before the Board. After going through the said defence statements submitted by Shri Patel since further inquiry was necessary in regard to said defence statements as well as with a view to afford adequate opportunities to said Shri Patel for furnishing oral as well as documentary evidence and therefore, vide Ref No. 2 and Ref No. 5 cited orders, Shri J.P. Mehta, Retired Deputy Secretary and Shri C.K. Desai, I.A.S. (Retired) were appointed as the Inquiry Officers and after completing detailed inquiries into the statement of allegations by said two officers, they had submitted their inquiry reports before the board vide Ref. No. 3 and Ref. No. 6 cited hereinabove, respectively. Taking into consideration the Inquiry Report of the Inquiry Officers, they have believed all the allegations made in the statement of allegations as having been proved. That Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board is fully agreeable with the conclusions of the Inquiry Officers and due to this reason, it is hereby decided-resolved under provisions of the Service & Discipline Rules applicable to the officers/employees of Gujarat State Khadi Gramodyog Board to inflict the stringent punishment of Compulsory retirement as prescribed under Rule-6 of the Gujarat State Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971. It is hereby simultaneously also decided/resolved to implement the order of said compulsory retirement with affect from 2.1.2001." 2.11 Being dissatisfied, the writ applicant has preferred this writ application. 3. Mr. Mehul Sharad Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant vehemently submitted that the action on the part of the Board in passing the order of compulsory retirement could be termed as arbitrary, highhanded, perverse and illegal. 4. According to the learned counsel, the case in hand is one of both, malice in law and malice in fact. 5. The learned counsel would submit that the two departmental inquiries on the charges referred to above were absolutely unwarranted and both the inquiries should have been dropped after considering the exhaustive replies filed by the writ applicant to the two charge-sheets. 5. The learned counsel would submit that the two departmental inquiries on the charges referred to above were absolutely unwarranted and both the inquiries should have been dropped after considering the exhaustive replies filed by the writ applicant to the two charge-sheets. The learned counsel pointed out that so far as the allegations of the sale of 41,410/- kg of the processed "Puni" is concerned, a criminal prosecution was also instituted against the three employees excluding the writ applicant. The learned counsel pointed out that a first information report being C.R. No. 1-51 of 1998 was lodged before the Vadhvan Police Station on 24.4.1998, wherein one clerk, a contractor and a watchman were arraigned as the accused. He pointed out that the allegations levelled in the first information report are quite contrary to the allegations which have been levelled in the departmental charge-sheet issued to the writ applicant. In the first information report, the allegations are of the theft of about 290 bales of cotton, whereas in the departmental charge-sheet served upon the writ applicant, the allegations are in respect with the Puni (Slivers). According to the learned counsel, there is a vast difference between the cotton bales and slivers. 6. The learned counsel pointed out that when the writ applicant was discharging his duties as the Managing Director of the trust, one Shri Pravinbhai Parmar was serving as the Manager. Although the Manager was in full time control of the godowns, yet for one reason or the other, no action was taken by the Board against him. 7. The learned counsel submitted that his client could not have been held responsible for the alleged fraudulent disposal of the 290 bales of the cotton stock, because on 20th March, 1997, the in-charge clerk one Shri Amit Viramgami at the Vadhvan Puni Plant had submitted the statement of stock before the Manager Shri Pravinbhai Parmar showing, in all, 290 bales of the cotton stock. The original statement was given to the Member Secretary by the Manager as the Member Secretary was the in-charge Managing Trustee of the Trust in the absence of the writ applicant. Since the writ applicant was to leave the country on 23rd March, 1997, the Member Secretary was given the charge to function as the Managing Trustee of the Trust. The original statement was given to the Member Secretary by the Manager as the Member Secretary was the in-charge Managing Trustee of the Trust in the absence of the writ applicant. Since the writ applicant was to leave the country on 23rd March, 1997, the Member Secretary was given the charge to function as the Managing Trustee of the Trust. Upto 20th March, 1997, the stock was maintained and no theft was reported till the writ applicant proceeded on leave. 8. According to Mr. Shah, if something happened during the absence of the writ applicant, then the writ applicant could not have been held responsible for the same. 9. Mr. Shah submitted that the charge against the writ applicant that he had left the country without any formal permission from the Board, is not correct and contrary to the documentary evidence on record. Mr. Shah clarified that his client was selected as a leader of the GSE Team to visit the Philippines for a period of six weeks commencing from 23rd March. The meet at Philippines was organized by the Rotary International. The writ applicant had applied for leave vide his application dated 18th February, 1998 addressed to the Chairman of the Board. The application was forwarded to the Chairman through the Member Secretary. The application was finally sanctioned by the Chairman of the Board on 5th March, 1998, and the writ applicant, thereafter, proceeded on leave with effect from 23rd March, 1998. The writ applicant proceeded on leave after handing over the charge to the concerned officer with regard to his office as an Executive Officer of the Board as well as the Managing Director of the Trust. 10. Mr. Shah submitted that in so far as the charge of committing mistake in the issue of circular as regards granting rebate on Khadi & Poly Vastra as a part of the celebration of the Gandhi Jayanti is concerned, the same is absolutely baseless and speaks volumes about the arbitrariness on the part of the Board. 11. Mr. Shah, in his own way, explained the consistent practice and policy which was being followed by the Board past many years as regards the rebate to be given on the sale of cotton, woolen khadi, poly vastra etc. 11. Mr. Shah, in his own way, explained the consistent practice and policy which was being followed by the Board past many years as regards the rebate to be given on the sale of cotton, woolen khadi, poly vastra etc. He submitted that according to the procedure, the circular in respect of the rebate, is initially prepared by the clerk, keeping in mind the earlier circulars and the same is, thereafter, placed before the Deputy Director (Khadi) being one of the responsible officers of the Board. Thereafter, for further approval, the same would be placed before the Member Secretary. After the Member Secretary approves the draft circular, the same would go for implementation and execution before the Executive Officer, i.e., the writ applicant. The draft circular dated 14th August, 1997 was approved by the Deputy Secretary (Khadi) and, thereafter, it was placed for approval before one Shri Naranbhai Makwana, the Member Secretary. He approved the draft circular and forwarded to the writ applicant. According to the learned counsel, his client had no authority or power to modify the circular in any manner already approved by the higher authority, i.e., the Member Secretary. The Member Secretary, who had actually approved the circular, with which the Board found fault, was not proceeded departmentally. 12. Mr. Shah submitted that the circular dated 14th August, 1997 was also placed before one another Member Secretary, a very senior and responsible Class-I officer and he also, in turn, had verified the same. No irregularity was found or pointed out by him of any nature. 13. Mr. Shah submitted that as regards the allegation about the circular dated 7th October, 1997 issued by the Board on the occasion of the Gandhi Jayanti with regard to giving of rebate on all kinds of Khadi & Poly Vastra is concerned, the Government has amended the resolution dated 2nd October, 1997 by issuing another resolution dated 6th October, 1997, whereby the restrictions to grant rebate on all kinds of Khadi & Poly Vastra came to be relaxed. Thereafter, the circular dated 7th October, 1997 came to be issued by the Board. The restriction so far as the grant of rebate only on Khadi products of Gujarat is concerned, the same was removed by the Government with a clarification that the same would apply to all types of Khadi Products. 14. Thereafter, the circular dated 7th October, 1997 came to be issued by the Board. The restriction so far as the grant of rebate only on Khadi products of Gujarat is concerned, the same was removed by the Government with a clarification that the same would apply to all types of Khadi Products. 14. He submitted that although the respondent board issued the circular dated 8th October, 1997 whereby it granted the rebate only on the Cotton Khadi inconsonance with the two circulars of the State Government dated 2nd October 1997 and 6th October, 1997 respectively, yet the circular dated 7th October, 1997 was placed for approval before the Deputy Director (Khadi), Member Secretary Shri S.K. Golakia, who had approved the draft circular and forwarded the same to the writ applicant for circulation. In short, according to Mr. Shah, the draft circular was signed and approved by all the concerned officers and, therefore, to find fault only with the writ applicant, is too much. 15. Mr. Shah submitted that the power to appoint the Executive Officer according to the provisions of section 7, sub-section (2) of the Act is vested in the Board. In pursuance of the said powers, the Board has framed the regulations known as the Gujarat Rajya Khadi Gramodhyog Board Officers and Servants (conditions of service) Regulations, 1973. The regulation 4(2) therein provides that the provisions contained in the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1971 shall apply mutatis mutandis to all the officers and servants subject to the modifications. According to Mr. Shah, Rule 2(a) of the Rules defines "Appointing Authority" and rule 2(c) defines "Disciplinary Authority". In case of the writ applicant both, the appointing authority and the disciplinary authority is only the Board and none else. Mr. Shah submits that in the case of the writ applicant, the inquiry was instituted by the Member Secretary of the Board and not by the Board. The member secretary is neither an appointing authority nor a disciplinary authority. 16. Mr. Shah lastly submitted that no opportunity of hearing was given before imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement, thereby vitiating the impugned order. 17. In such circumstances referred to above, according to Mr. Shah, there being merit in this writ application, the same may be allowed and the impugned order be quashed. 18. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. 17. In such circumstances referred to above, according to Mr. Shah, there being merit in this writ application, the same may be allowed and the impugned order be quashed. 18. On the other hand, this writ application has been vehemently opposed by Mr. Premal Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the Board as well as by the learned AGP appearing for the State Government. Both the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed in passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement. They would submit that no case worth the name is made out for invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. They submitted that both the Inquiry Officers, in their reports, observed that all the charges stood proved. The two inquiry reports were considered by the disciplinary authority and the same were accepted. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 20. It has been submitted that if there is some legal evidence, on the basis of which the authority has reached to the conclusion that the delinquent is guilty of the alleged misconduct, then the Court should be very slow and circumspect in interfering with such decision. 21. It has been submitted that the guilt of the delinquent in a departmental inquiry has to be established on the preponderance of probability and not by insisting proof beyond reasonable doubt. 22. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having considered the materials on record, the only question that falls for my consideration is whether the authority concerned committed any error in passing the impugned order of compulsory retirement from the service. 23. I have no doubt in my mind and without any hesitation, I state that the findings recorded by the two Inquiry Officers and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority could be termed as perverse. It is well settled that the adequacy or reliability of the evidence in the departmental inquiry is not a matter which can be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not an Appellate Authority, while reviewing the questions of fact. It is well settled that the adequacy or reliability of the evidence in the departmental inquiry is not a matter which can be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not an Appellate Authority, while reviewing the questions of fact. Therefore, the High Court should not review the evidence and set aside the findings of fact based on legal evidence. However, there are limitations on the applicability of this principle. This Court would be justified to interfere with the findings of the Inquiry Officer if they are not based on any evidence or are based on inadmissible evidence or there are errors of law apparent on the face of the record. State of Andhra Pradesh v. V. Sree Rama rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 , Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, 1972 (4) SCC 618 , Bagata Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 , State of Maharashtra v. Madukar Nayarana, AIR 1991 SC 207 . 24. It is settled principle of law that the perverse evidence cannot be said to be an admissible evidence. A finding based on the perverse evidence has to be stated as a finding based on no evidence or is based on inadmissible evidence. At this stage, it is relevant to refer what is the meaning of 'no evidence', from Wade on Administrative Law (Fifth Edition) at page 287; "no evidence does not mean only a total dearth of evidence. It extends to any case where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting the finding; or where in other words, no Tribunal could reasonably reach that conclusion on that evidence (R. v. Roberts (1909) I KB page 407 @ 423. 25. This 'no evidence' principle clearly has something in common that the principle that perverse or unreasonable action is authorised and ultra vires "a reading of the above makes it clear that the finding based on the no evidence or inadmissible evidence or on evidence which is not legal, is perverse and the same amounts to error apparent on the face of the record and the High Court can interfere while exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution". Hence, it is to be considered whether the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer suffers from perversity. It is also the settled proposition that the finding of the authority can be said to be a perverse finding, if a reasonable man of ordinary prudence would not come to such a finding on the set of facts. 26. A similar question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Sree Ram Rao, 1964-II-LLJ-150. Speaking for the Constitution Bench, Justice Shah, observed at page 154 as under; "The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry of where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrive at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in proceeding for a writ under Article 226 of the constitution." 2.3 A similar view was taken by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel, 1964-II-LLJ-38). To the same effect, decisions were rendered in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, 1972-I-LLJ-1 Bhagat Ram v. State of H.P., 1983-II-LLJ-1 and State of Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar, 1991-I-LLJ-269" 27. Bearing in mind the above, I proceed to assign my reasons why the order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed. The documentary evidence on record indicates that before proceeding on leave, the writ applicant had applied for the requisite permission vide application dated 18th February, 1998, Annexure-A/4 to this petition. I take notice of the remark put up by the Chairman that leave is sanctioned. Later on, the leave was sanctioned by the Board. The documentary evidence on record indicates that before proceeding on leave, the writ applicant had applied for the requisite permission vide application dated 18th February, 1998, Annexure-A/4 to this petition. I take notice of the remark put up by the Chairman that leave is sanctioned. Later on, the leave was sanctioned by the Board. The order dated 15th May, 1998 passed by the Board, sanctioning the leave, Annexure-A/5 is on record. 28. I also take notice of the fact that the writ applicant had handed over the charge to one Shri Bipinbhai P. Shah-Law Officer for the period between 23rd March, 1998 and 30th April, 1998. Thus, in my view, it is too much to say that the writ applicant had left the country without any prior permission or sanction of the leave of the Board. There is thumping documentary evidence on record in this regard, supporting the case of the writ applicant. 29. Let me now look into the oral evidence which was recorded in the course of the departmental inquiries. The oral evidence of one Joitabhai A. Patel, an Administrative Officer of the Board, reads as under; "I am engaged in the activities of the Gramodhyog Institutions for the last 49 years. I had been the Secretary of the said Institution from the very day of is inception, and since last about three years, I am the Chairman, and I had been the Secretary of the Gujarat Reformative Committee, Rajkot, which is the largest Khadi institution in the Gujarat and the country, since 1964 till now. When Shri Vajubhai Shah was the Chairman of the Gujarat State Khadi Gramodhyog Board, and thereafter, when Shri Prasannavadanbhai Mehta was the Chairman, I was the member of the Gujarat State Khadi Gramodhyog Board and during all these years, I was also the member in the standing committee. On the eve of the Gujarat State Golden Jubilee, the Gujarat State Government has declared the rebate through the Khadi Gramodhyog Board, whereby, the rebate for the purchase of Gujarat made khadi was to be given at the relevant time, and as per the procedure followed uptill now, there had been no any letter from the concerned Department of the State Government, in my view erroneous, that the rebate was not to be given on all types of khadi. In order to make clear this aspect, and in support of this, he averred the following brief facts. (1) During the time when late Shri Chimanbhai Patel was the Chief Minister of the Gujarat State, the system of giving 15% rebate had been commenced every year. In the same way, instead of giving 15% rebate on all types of khadi, having regard to the celebration of the nation's golden jubilee, in regard to the all types of khadi, including the khadi of other states, for all the 12 months, and for 90 days, the special sale commences from the date of Gandhi Jayanti, and at that time, a request had been made for declaring additional 10% rebate by the relevant Chairman of the State Board-Shri Navinbhai Patel, on behalf of all the khadi institutions, to the Industries Secretary, State Government Shri Mahapatraji, Cottage Industries Minister and Hon'ble Chief Minister Shri Shankersinh Vaghela. (2) When we met to the Hon'ble Minister for Industries Shri Mahapatraji, and at that time also, he made a telephone call from Gandhinagar to the State Board Member Secretary Shri Mehta Saheb to make a proposal as per our request. Therefore, the concerned Secretary of the Industries Department at the relevant time was very well aware that as per the prevailing system of every year, the rebate on all types of khadi including the Gujarat khadi was to be given. Thus, in view opinion, Gujarat State Khadi Gramodhyog has made a proposal in this way. (3) When first of all it has been decided to give the rebate for one year by the state government in August, 1997 at that time, Hon'ble Chief Minister Shri Shankersinh Vaghela and Industries Minister Shri Dilipbhai Parikh had made declaration for giving 15% rebate on the khadi for all the 12 months/year. This advertisement had also been published in the newspaper at the relevant time and the same advertisement had also been published in the Souvenir of the Gram Nirman, August, 1997. (4) Thereafter, when it has been decided to give the additional 10% rebate from 2nd October-Gandhi Jayanti and at that time also, it has been declared to give the additional 10% rebate on all sorts of khadi and on the khadi of other states. This advertisement/declaration was made on the earlier night of 2nd October under the signature of the Hon'ble Finance Minister and Hon'ble Chief Minister. This advertisement/declaration was made on the earlier night of 2nd October under the signature of the Hon'ble Finance Minister and Hon'ble Chief Minister. In this connection, the concerned Cottage Industries Minister Shri Kantibhai Solanki had also declare before the press meeting to give the additional 15% rebate for all the year on the khadi by the Gujarat Government, as being done by the Central Government and to give 10% additional rebate for a period of 90 days from the Gandhi Jayanti, a xerox copy of which is enclosed herewith. Thereafter, the Gujarat State Khadi Gramodhyog Board had issued public advertisements through the newspapers, television, radio and on the souvenir of the State Khadi Gramodhyog Board and declared the same. Thus, in my view, there could not be any intention on part of any officer of the State Board to impose any culpability on the Board or the financial transactions of the State by way of mentioning and advertising as regards the rebate on the khadi of other states. The way in which I understand the administration, it is the responsibility of the officer who prepares the circulars and signs the circulars as regards the circulars or decisions taken at the Sachivalaya level or in any other department of the State. Before making such circulars relating to the policy decisions, the concerned top officers and the officers are being placed and under their signatures only, such circulars are being issued. In the same way, the circular of the concerned Board has been the circular which had been issued by the chairman of the Board, upon grant of approval by the relevant member Secretary. With reference to the Independence Golden Jubilee, the Gujarat State Government has issued the first circular, through the Industries & Mines Department, dated 12.8.87 bearing ref No. GMU/1088/4599/DH, wherein in the beginning of the resolution itself, the following sentence is mentioned:- "on the eve of Gandhi Jayanti, the State Government is giving rebate on the sale of all types of khadi, every year." The above mentioning itself indicates that, even in the earlier years also, the rebate is being given on all types of the khadi by the State Government and during the years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 also, as per this prevalent system, the rebate had been given on the khadi, including the khadi of other states. Therefore, it becomes clear that the intention of the state is to give the rebate on the khadi, including the khadi of other states, too. But, it may be that, though over sight, further clarification could not be made in the circular. When this question arose, we had made representations before the state government and I and my companions have met Shri Keshubhai Patel, Hon'ble Chief Minister of the State, in the Sachivalaya, and at that time, Shri Bhanujan, Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Shri P.K. Laheri Saheb, Personal Secretary of the Hon'ble Chief Minister and Shri Jyoti Saheb, Hon'ble Minister for Industries were present. The attention as regards the preamble of the circular and other aspects was drawn and at that time, Shri P.K. Laheri has called for the concerned file of the proposal from the Industries Department, and in this meeting, he brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Chief Minister that, on perusal of the remark, the submission/representation of the Board appears to be true. There is no any specific or clear cut mention made in the remarks to give the rebate only on the khadi or Gujarat State. But, later on, it appears that some mistake has crept in, and in this regard, vide letter of the State Government Industries & Mines Department, dated 20th August, 1999, bearing ref No. GMU/1098/1258/B-1, the amendment-rectification in this behalf was also made. It is a matter of surprise for me that, the relevant Hon'ble Chief Minister, Hon'ble Ministries for Industries, Hon'ble Minister for Cottage Industries have made a clear declaration/advertisement which have been duly published in the newspapers. It has also been published in the advertisement of the State Khadi Gramodhyog Board. The circular of the State Khadi Gramodhyog Board had been displayed at the office of the Cottage Industries Commissioner and the Industries Department. At no point of time, anybody has uttered about the rebate to be given only on the cotton khadi, other than Gujarat nor anybody has drawn the attention, nor objected to it. Further, the rebate has been given on the polyester khadi. Then, 90% if the polyester khadi belongs to the other States only. At no point of time, anybody has uttered about the rebate to be given only on the cotton khadi, other than Gujarat nor anybody has drawn the attention, nor objected to it. Further, the rebate has been given on the polyester khadi. Then, 90% if the polyester khadi belongs to the other States only. That is to day, had there been an intention of the Government to give the rebate only on the khadi of Gujarat, merely for the eve of Golden Jubiless, then in that case, it has not been declared regarding the rebate on the polyester khadi. It is more pertinent to state that, on the claims submitted by the smaller institutions claiming for the rebate compensation, under the instructions of the State Government, Industries Department, it has been asked to pay the compensation and accordingly, the claim amount for the khadi, including the khadi of the other states had also been paid up. When that amount was being paid, then obviously, as per the system of administration, such payment could have been made only when there had been a prior approval from the concerned Member Secretary, Finance Advisor and the Hon'ble Chairman. If an body is at fault in this behalf, then they all would be at fault. But, in my humble view. It appears that only due to mistake, this question arose in the golden jubilee year, because, even in the earlier years, the rebate compensation had been paid on the cotton khadi, including the khadi of the other states, and even in the letter years also, such payment has been made. On the contrary, the manner in which khadi is related to the independence fight, during the golden jubilee year, there could not be the limitation to give the rebate only the khadi of the Gujarat." 30. The oral evidence of one Shri Navinbhai P. Patel, former Chairman of the Board, reads as under; "I have worked as the Chairman in the Gujarat State Khadi Gramodhyog Board for the period from 16.12.96 to 5.3.98. During this time, a decision was taken by the cabinet of the stage government to celebrate the independence golden jubilee. In this connection, a telephonic instruction had been given on 21.7.97 by Shri Rajendrabhai Bhatt, Joint Secretary, Industries Department, that, on the eve of golden jubilee year, a proposal for rebate on the khadi and polyester be forwarded. During this time, a decision was taken by the cabinet of the stage government to celebrate the independence golden jubilee. In this connection, a telephonic instruction had been given on 21.7.97 by Shri Rajendrabhai Bhatt, Joint Secretary, Industries Department, that, on the eve of golden jubilee year, a proposal for rebate on the khadi and polyester be forwarded. In this regard, on 12.1.97, the concerned Member Secretary has forwarded detailed proposal to the Government through the board. Further, with reference to the above phone, in addition to the rebate on the sale during the period year of independence golden jubilee, the Board has also forwarded a special proposal for encouraging the weavers and Vankars engaged in such activities, and for that, a proposal was also made to the Government for making the provision for additional Rs. 8 crores. The reply narrated by Shri Devendrabhai, in my presence, the averments narrated by him are correct, because, when he made the representation, I was with him in the meeting with the concerned chief Minister and the Hon'ble Minister for Industries, and we both have made the representation, and when a programme arranged by the Experiment Committee of the Institution, the Hon'ble Chief Minister has made an advertisement at the relevant time to give special benefit to the weavers and Vankars, wherein the press media were also present, and it is a true fact. The submission made with the office bearers of the institutions, it included that, as per the prevalent system since years together, khadi means all types of khadi, in the meeting held with the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Hon'ble Minister for Industries, Hon'ble Finance Minister, Shri P.K. Laheri, Chief Secretary to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, wherein this submission was made. During the discussions, it was the unanimous view of all persons present in the meeting to give the rebate which is being given since years, and as prevalent now. At that time, the Hon'ble Chief Minister stated that, if the Central Government would declare to give additional rebate on this occasion, then we will also declare the additional rebate as per the norms of the central government; and in that connection, the central government and state government both met together, and a decision had been taken to give 50% rebate on the khadi, on the eve of 50 years of independence golden jubilee. Prior to this also, since last many years, there had been no any discrimination in the Gujarat State of Gandhiji, between the khadi of Gujarat and the khadi of other States; and in the Gujarat of Gandhiji, there cannot be any imagination of the discrimination in the Gujarat State of Gandhiji, between the khadi of Gujarat and the khadi of other States. The question of circular which has come to light later on, it is in fact a matter of policy decision and if any change is to be effected in the policy decision, then being the chairman of the board, it is required to take me into confidence, and I have never been informed about this at any point of time. With regard to the independence golden jubilee, on 12.1.97 and 31.7.97, the Member Secretary had discussed with me and made a proposal to the government. On 12.8.97 also, the industries department had made the circular wherein there is a mention as regards the special rebate on the sale of khadi and polyester clothes. But, it may be possible that, the mention of Gujarat in the resolution is at the level of industries department. This letter has been received by the Board on 13.8.97, and at the relevant time, I had been informed by the Member Secretary, Vice Chairman. Since it was to be implemented from 15.8.97, and as the member secretary (government) was on leave, the issue of the circular for rebate had been got approved by the member secretary Shri Naranbhai Makwana, and on that day, Darbar Saheb did not resume, hence, I instructed to issue the circular from 15/8, and after he resumes from the leave, i.e. on 16/8, Shri P.L. Darbar has writer after issue seen. That is to say, had there been a confusion as regards the other states, he also could have drawn the attention. Further, the circular dated 15/8 bearing No. 515 had also been forwarded, in addition to the Chairman of the Board, to the Joint Secretary, State Government, Industries & Mines Department as well as Commissioner, Cottage Industries. It means that, they are in agreement with the circular. Had there been any defects in the circular, they would have certainly drawn the attention of the Board. Thus, in this entire proceedings, no an one person is liable. But, it is only a confusion of administration. It means that, they are in agreement with the circular. Had there been any defects in the circular, they would have certainly drawn the attention of the Board. Thus, in this entire proceedings, no an one person is liable. But, it is only a confusion of administration. If any financial liability arises, then as per the submissions made by the institution and other submissions, submission of Shri Devendrabhai, the government did not issue the amendment on dated 20.8.99, and in the years thereafter, i.e. in the year 1998-99 and 1999-2000 also, the prevalent rebate had been paid. I therefore believe that, there was no need to make any change in this prevalent proceedings/system during the year of golden jubilee." 31. Nothing substantial could be elicited by the department during the cross-examination of the two witnesses referred to above so as to render their evidence doubtful in any manner. The evidence of the two witnesses makes the picture more than clear. Each and every authority, right upto the Chief Minister of the State, was aware of the circular with which fault is sought to be found with the writ applicant. At no point of time, any authority raised any objection before the same was published and made public. 32. So far as the allegation as regards the fraudulent sale of the cotton bales is concerned, for which the criminal prosecution was also instituted against the three erring officers, I am of the view that the same had nothing to do with the writ applicant. Everything was in order till the writ applicant left for Philippines. Whatever happened was during the interregnum period, i.e., during the period when the writ applicant was not in India. 33. Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed. 34. Since I have reached to the conclusion that the impugned order of compulsory retirement deserves to be quashed and set aside on the ground that the case in hand is one of 'no evidence', and the departmental inquiries were not warranted, I am not going into the question as regards the competence of the Member Secretary of the Board to initiate the departmental inquiry and pass the impugned order. 35. 35. It appears that during the pendency of this writ application, the writ applicant attained the age of superannuation, i.e., on 31.5.2010 and, therefore, there is no question of reinstating him in service. 36. The above takes me to consider what relief should be granted to the writ applicant. 37. Having regard to the perverse findings recorded by the Inquiry Officers and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, the writ applicant is entitled to the back wages from the date of the order of compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.5.2010. 38. In the result, this writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of compulsory retirement is hereby ordered to be quashed. It is declared that the writ applicant is entitled to 100% back wages towards the salary from the date of the order of compulsory retirement till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 31.5.2010. The writ applicant is also entitled to all other retiral benefits due and payable to him in accordance with the rules and regulations. The arrears of back wages towards the salary shall be paid to the writ applicant within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the writ of the order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.