M NARASIMHACHAR Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against an order of the Mysore High Court in a service matter. The appellant was in the service of the Mysore State. In 1951 he was the manager of the Government Reserve Foodgrains from Pandavapura. He was transferred from Pandavapura on 15-5-1951, and handed over charge of the Depot to one Shri Srinivasachar that there was shortage of 27 pallas of ragi in the stock handed over to him. Thereupon an enquiry was held by the Sub-Division Officer. The appellant was dissatisfied with the enquiry as according to him it had not been properly conducted. He therefore complained against the Sub-Division Officer and also brought it to the notice of the higher authorities that certain rooms containing stock of gunny bags had been sealed and the seals were not allowed to be broken till 24-3-1952, with the result that a large number of gunny bags which were stocked there had deteriorated and had been eaten by white-ants. It appears that these preliminary enquiries went on till August 1952 when the appellant was appointed Special Revenue Inspector under the Assistant Director of Food Supplies. He went to take over charge of the new post in September 1952 but was not allowed to do so by an order of 12-9-1952. He then approached the higher authorities but was suspended on 29-12-1952. On 4-4-1953, the following charges were framed against him-

(2.) The appellant submitted a reply to the charges and made several representations to various officers in that behalf. Eventually he received a notice on 23-11-1953, from the Director of Food Supplies directing him to appear in connection with the enquiry relating to the shortage in the Reserve Depot. Subsequently, an enquiry was held by the Personal Assistant to the Director who made a report thereafter. Finally, a notice was issued to the appellant by the Government on 30-12-1954, that six of the seven charges framed against him (except the charge relating to 27 pallas of ragi) had been proved on enquiry and he was asked to show cause within one week from the date of the receipt of the notice why he should not be compulsorily retired from service, why the period of suspension should not be treated as such leave to which he might be entitled and why the leave allowances due to him, his insurance amount and 50 per cent. of his pension should not be adjusted towards the amount due from him on account of the shortage of gunny bags valued at Rs. 5,215. The appellant submitted a long explanation in reply to this notice. In the meantime the appellant had attained the age of 55 years. Therefore, the Government passed an order on 18-3-1955, in the following terms-

(3.) Thereafter the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court on 5-9-1955. His main contention was that the order of the Government retiring him was not in accordance with articles 294 to 297 of the Regulations and the Revised Pension Rules of the same Regulations. He also contended that the order of the Government reducing his pension to twothirds of that to which he would be ordinarily entitled was invalid as it was not mentioned in the notice given to him on 30-12-1954, and that this reduction of pension was violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. Finally he contended that the order of Government treating his period of suspension as period of such leave as might be due to him and recovery of Rs. 5,215 from the amounts due to him from the Government and his pension was illegal and arbitrary. The petition was opposed by the State of Mysore and its contention was that the order passed was strictly in accordance with the Regulations and that in no case Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution had any application and as such the reliefs sought by the appellant could not be granted on a writ petition. The High Court held that Art. 311 (2) had no application and that the order passed by the Government was in accordance with the Regulations and that it was not possible to give any relief to the appellant. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The appellant then applied for a certificate to enable him to appeal to this Court, which was refused. He followed it by asking for special leave from this Court which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.