JUDGMENT : Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge only to the extent wherein adverse remarks were made and an enquiry was directed to be held while keeping her under suspension, the respondent No.3 therein has filed this appeal. 2. Sri P.S.Rajagopal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant’s counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has passed an erroneous order. That notwithstanding the merits of the matter various remarks were made against the appellant which is uncalled for. That the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge have no basis. They do not emanate from the records. Making remarks against a responsible officer of the State is inappropriate. If at all an error is committed by the appellant the same, is part and parcel of the duties being done by the appellant. There are no malafides involved. Therefore, ordering suspension and enquiry to be held against the appellant is erroneous. 3. We have heard petitioner’s counsel and the learned Government Advocate. Respondent No.3 and 6 are served and unrepresented. The learned Single Judge while considering the facts of the case was of the view that when the documents were sought for by the writ petitioner they were informed that certain records were not available. Therefore, the learned Single Judge concluded that the impugned order is a created document. The learned Single Judge goes on to hold that the impugned order could not have been passed. The remarks have been made by the learned Single Judge to the effect that creation of the documents has become the order of the day. That the entire Revenue Department appears to have been taken over by the land mafia. That they are joining hands with mafia and becoming its members. Even though affidavits were filed by the appellant before the learned Single Judge, the same appears to have been brushed aside. Therefore, the learned Single Judge ordered a criminal investigation by the Superintendent of Police. In doing so, it was also observed that the Joint Commissioner of BBMP is likely to pull all the plugs to ensure that the documents are misplaced and would obstruct in the smooth conduct of the enquiry. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered, so also to keep the officer under suspension. 4. We are indeed shocked at the manner in which such an order is passed. Therefore, an enquiry was ordered, so also to keep the officer under suspension. 4. We are indeed shocked at the manner in which such an order is passed. There is absolutely lack of any information as to how such an opinion could be formed. Reckless remarks against the officials that the Revenue Department has been taken over by the land mafia and that they have joined hands with mafia and becoming its members is an unfortunate statement made not only against the officials of Revenue Department but even against the State. We do not think that the learned Single Judge was authorised to make such remarks. If at all there is anything adverse which was found by the learned Single Judge, then appropriate action should have been taken in a manner known to law. To make such reckless remarks against the officials of the Government, in our considered view is beyond the authority and jurisdiction of the learned Single Judge. Even though the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the documents have been created, we do not find any reason assigned by the learned Single Judge as to how he arrives at such a conclusion. Every opinion formed should have its basis on facts. The same is absent herein. The learned Single Judge by seeing the impugned order has jumped to the conclusion that they are created documents. It is indeed a very serious matter for the Court to hold that the documents are created. Such a finding can only be recorded only after a fulfledged enquiry and not by prima facie reading of the impugned order. Findings of fact cannot be recorded by a writ court. Therefore, we find that the none of the observations made by the learned Single Judge should remain on record. Under these circumstances, the appeal is allowed. 1) All the remarks made by the learned Single Judge against the 3rd respondent are hereby set aside. 2) The direction to hold an enquiry as well as to keep the Officer under suspension is set aside.