to pass the impugned order of reversion. The impugned orders of reversion and suspension are said to have been passed for one another reason that when the petitioner's name was included in the panel for promotion to the post of District Revenue Officer for the year 2008, the charge sheet was taken on file in Special Calendar Case Nos.72 and 73 of 2007 on 24.7.2007. But the petitioner, being well aware of the charge sheet filed against him, purposefully suppressed the said fact to the higher officers while his name was under consideration for promotion. In view of that, as per the norms laid down in G.O.Ms.No.368, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 18.10.93 and Government Letter No.18824/S/2005-2, Personnel & Administrative Reforms (S) Department dated 7.10.2005, the respondents thought it fit to revoke the order of promotion by passing the reversion order. No doubt, the respondents have passed the order of reversion against the petitioner. But, before passing the order of reversion, as it is settled law, the respondents ought to have given prior notice. Therefore, on the sole ground that the respondents have not issued any prior notice calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be reverted, the impugned order of reversion is liable to be set aside. That apart, when the petitioner along with six other persons approached the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode seeking an order of discharge from the criminal case, the learned Special Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate, by order dated 8.8.2011, rejected their request. As against that, Criminal Revision Case Nos.1214, 1309 and 1310 of 2011 were filed before this Court challenging the correctness of the order refusing their prayer for discharge. By a detailed order dated 24.7.2013, this Court allowed all the criminal revision cases, not only in favour of the petitioner, but also in favour of several other persons including the other six petitioners who filed the criminal revision cases, by giving the following reasons:''5. It appears that the occurrence relates to the period from 1989 to 1992. The First Information Report was filed in the year 2001 and the final report was filed in the year 2007. At the time of filing the final report, all the public servants were retired from service. On perusing the order passed by the trial Court, it appears that the trial Court discharged mostly the main accused who were all public servants, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officers, Deputy Tahsildars and further the accused who prepared the inspection report, made field visits and submitted proposals for sanctioning the housing loan have also been discharged. The initial enquiry would be made not below the rank of Deputy Tahsildar and verification of the utilisation must be done by the RDOs, Special Deputy Collector and P.A.to Collector. All those public servants were discharged by the trial Court. On going through the reasons given by the
