23,371/. should number be recovered from his salary on account of the loss caused to the Government by the respondents negligence.
4,576/ being the amount of loss caused to Government in the above companynection.
Thereafter the Mysore Government took further steps in the matter and the respondent presented several other writ petitions in the Mysore High Court impinging the subsequent action of the Mysore Government.
The Public Service Commission recommended that in addition to stopping the respondent at the efficiency bar for the period 1952 to 1957 as recommended by the Government, the pecuniary loss caused to the Government should be recovered from the respondent.
The respondent sent in his explanations dated June 14, 1951 and December 10, 1951 to the Superintending Engineer, Munirabad.
In October 1953 the Enquiry Officer came to the companyclusion that some loss had been caused in respect of four projects more due to lack of foresight and organising capacity on the part of the respondent than to any intentional misappropriation and a show cause numberice was issued on March 11, 1955 asking the respondent to show cause why he should number be stopped from crossing the efficiency bar with effect from February 9, 1952 and why a sum of Rs.
After his retirement the respondent flied writ petition No.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 1, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
It is unnecessary for the purpose of the purpose of the present appeal to set out the orders of the Mysore Government and the writ petitions filed by the respondent and the Orders made by the High Court except to state that by an order made on December 10, 1960 he respondent who was to have retired with effect from October 27, 1960, the date on which he companypleted the age of 55 years was companytinued in service but under suspension pending companypletion of the disciplinary proceedings against him and that the Government by a subsequent order dated May 19, 1961 revoked the previous order of December 10, 1960 and permitted the respondent to retire dropping altogether the disciplinary proceedings against him.
The claim of the respondent was resisted by the Mysore State on the ground that under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules a specific order ought to be made permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar.
After the respondent had shown cause the matter was sent by the Government to the Public Service Commission.
By its order dated October 14, 1958 the Mysore Government directed that the respondent should be retired companypulsorily from service and should also be asked to make good sum of Rs.
because the report of the Enquiry Officer was number furnished to the respondent.
1280 of 1961.
On November 1, 1956 the States Reorganisation came into force and the services of the respondent stood transferred to the State of Mysore.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On the basis of some information the explanation of the respondent was called for in respect of certain alleged irregularities in the execution of certain project works.
Niren De, Attorney General, S.S. Javali and S.P. Nayar, for the appellant.
1280 of 1961 praying for declaration that he should be regarded as having crossed the efficiency bar in his pay scale on February 9, 1952 and that he should be given all the increments after the efficiency bar in the pay scale of an Executive Engineer and that he should be paid the difference and his pension should be fixed on the basis of enhanced salary claimed by him.
1312 of 1966.
The High Court of Mysore allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Government.
900 50 1200 EB 75 1500 in Osmania Sikka rupees.
1280 of 1961 directing the appellant to determine the salary payable to the respondent on the basis that he had been permitted to cross the efficiency bar in time scale of pay of Rs.
R.L. Iyengar and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated October 1, 1962 in Writ Petition No.
The respondent was working as an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of the Hyderabad State and was in charge of certain project works during the period June 1949 to September 1950.
The High Court also directed by the same judgment that the increments above the efficiency bar be withheld by the appellant should number be paid to him and the salary so determined should be taken into account for determining the amount of pension payable to the respondent in accordance with the relevant rules.
The respondent challenged this order by a writ petition on the ground that the Enquiry Officer at Hyderabad had exonerated him of all the charges excepting one and also.
