(1.) In order to appreciate the legal question arising in this case and also to dispose of this appeal, a few facts that are necessary are as follows
(2.) The respondent R. S. Naik, a member of the Karnataka Judicial Services in the cadre of District Judges while travelling in a passenger bus was alleged to have been involved in a drunken brawl in connection with which a complaint was lodged by a co-passenger or crew before the Police. In view of the said complaint this court on the administrative side, placed the respondent under suspension by an order No. HPS. 60/1980 dated 3-6-1980 (Annexure-C in the writ petition) till further orders with a direction that he should be paid subsintence allowances as per rules. Subsequently, however, as the respondent was on the verge to irement. on representation in a by MM, the Government a aepoing the recommendation made this Court and in exercise of the powers conicrred on it by R. 285 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules (here in after called the Rules) issued a notification No. DPAR 82 SHC 80 dt. 22-10-1980 (Annexure-D in the Writ, Petition) and permitted him to voluntarily retire from service with immediate effect. Accordingly and in pursuance of the said notification, the appellant retired from service with effect from 22-10-1980.
(3.) On his retirement, the respsndent made a representation that the period of suspension from 4-6-80 to 21-10 1080 may be treated as on duty and pension terminal benefits settled The Registrar of this Court had requested the State Government, as per Annexure-F produced in the writ petition, fo make payment of subsistence allowance for the afore said period However, the respondent urged that, on his retirement, the period of suspension had to be treated as on duty irrespective of the result of the intended prosecution against him and payments regulated only on that basis. Since his prayer was not granted, the respondent moved this Court in W.P No. 14128 of J981 seeking relief under Arts 226 & 227 of the Constitution.