STATE OF MYSORE Vs. S V G IYENGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Mysore High court, dated 1/10/1962 in Writ Petition no. 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 the time scale of pay of Rs. 900-50-1200-E. B.-75-1500 in Osmania Sikka rupees. The High court also directed by the same judgment that the increments above the efficiency bar withheld by the appellant should now 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.

(2.) 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 194 9/09/1950. 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. The respondent sent in his explanations, dated 14/06/1951 on December 10, 1951 to the Superintending Engineer, Munirabad. In October 1953 the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion 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 notice was issued on March 11, 1955 asking the respondent to show cause why he should not be stopped from crossing the efficiency bar with effect from 9/02/1952 and why a sum of Rs. 23,371. 00 should not be recovered from his salary on account of the loss caused to the government by the respondent's negligence. After the respondent had shown cause the matter was sent by the government to the public service commission. 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. On 1/11/1956 the States' Reorganisation came into force and the services of the respondent stood transferred to the State of Mysore. By its order, dated 14/10/1968 the Mysore government directed that the respondent should be retired compulsorily from service and should also be asked to make good a sum of Rs. 4,576. 00 being the amount of loss caused to government in the above connection. 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 because the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the respondent. The High court of Mysore allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the government. Thereafter themysore government took further steps in the matter and the respondent presented several other writ petitions in the Mysore High court impugning the subsequent action of the Mysore government. It is unnecessary for 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 10/12/1960 the respondent who was to have retired with effect from 27/10/1960, the date on which be completed the age of 55 years, was continued in service but under suspension pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings against him and that the government 'by a subsequent order, dated. 19/05/1961 revoked the previous order of 10/12/1960 and permitted the respondent to retire dropping altogether the disciplinary proceedings against him. After his retirement the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 1280 of 1961 praying for declaration that he should be regarded as having crossed the efficiency bar in his pay scale on 9/02/1952 and that be 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. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the Mysore State on the ground that under Rule 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules a specific order ought to be made permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar. The High court rejected the contention of the appellant and held that consequent upon the dropping of the proceedings against the respondent the increment withheld by way of penalty should be restored and the increased salary should be taken into account in fixing the amount of pension payable to the respondent.

(3.) Rule 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules, 1952 reads as follows: