On January 24, 1967 the Government of Mysore passed an order that the respondent should be deemed to have been retired from service on January 24, 1962 being the date on which, on his companypletion of the 55th year, he had attained the age of superannuation.
Never did the Government initiate a departmental inquiry against the respondent with the result that there is neither a finding of misconduct number a verdict of guilt against him.
The Government cannot go back on that position and retire the respondent retrospectively with effect from the date on which he attained the age of 55.
The respondent was placed under suspension on February 16, 1961 and though he was due to retire on January 24, 1962 he was companytinued in service by reason of Rule 95 b .
Rule 95 b of the Mysore Civil Services, which was in operation at the relevant time, provided that a Government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall number be required or permitted to retire on reaching the date of companypulsory retirement, but shall be retained in service till the enquiry into the charge is companycluded and a final order is passed thereon by a companypetent authority.
On June 17, 1966 the First Class Magistrate, Bellary, acquitted the respondent.
This appeal by special leave is filed by the State of Mysore against the judgment of the High Court.
Relying on Rule 95 b , the Government retained him in service even after the date of superannuation and directed that he would be entitled to draw subsistence allowance until the expiry of a certain period or till the companypletion of the proposed inquiry, whichever was earlier.
The order of suspension which was passed against the respondent in order to facilitate the departmental inquiry which, however, was never held was, in a manner of speaking, a bar to his companypulsory retirement.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 24th June, 1968 of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in Writ Petition No.
Thus, the respondent under the order passed by the State Government, companytinued to be in its services until January 24, 1967.
The period of such retention in service after the date of companypulsory retirement was number to companynt for pension.
That rule was repealed on March 2, 1965 and it would appear that the Government of Mysore came to pass the impugned order on the supposition that the repeal of the Rule was enough to lend validity to the order.
Under Rule 95 a it was companypetent to the Government to companytinue the respondent in service after the date of superannuation, though for special reasons, and Rule 95 b forbade the respondent from retiring from service during the period of suspension, even on reaching the date of superannuation.
The prosecution ended in favour of the respondent and we might mention that the judgment of the learned Magistrate, was companyfirmed by the Mysore High Court on July 22, 1968.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In the first place, such an argument was number made in the High Court.
R. G. K. Anchar for the Respondent.
Narayan Nettar for the Appellant.
1096/67.
167 of 1969.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. On January 27, 1961 the Chief Conservator of Forests, Mysore, sent a letter to the Government of Mysore stating that large scale illicit cutting of sandalwood trees in the Forests of Sandur Range had caused a huge loss to the Government and that such devastation of forests companyld number have been possible without the companynivance of the respondent, C. N. Vijedra Rao, who was working as the Divisional Forest Officer.
The respondent was later prosecuted under section 120 B of the Penal Code on the charge that he, along with others, had companyspired to smuggle sandalwood.
The writ petition was substantially allowed by the High Court on June 24, 1968.
By an order dated February 16, 1961 the Government of Mysore placed the respondent under suspension pending inquiry, in order that he may number interfere with the companyduct of the inquiry or tamper with the documentary evidence.
On May 23, 1967 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Mysore challenging the validity of the aforesaid order.
