VENKOBACHARYA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the third time the petitioner is approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petitioner was an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. He had to face departmental enquiry on some misconduct. Pending the enquiry, he was placed under suspension by order dt.30-7-1964. The enquiry was terminated with an order of compulsory retirement made on 5-6-1967. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred WP.1663 of 1967 in this Court. On 6-1-1971, that writ petition was allowed, quashing the order of compulsory retirement with liberty to the authority to continue the proceedings in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, there was further consideration of the case of the petitioner in which he was again found guilty of the charge and by order dt.28-4-1973 he was compulsorily retired from service. Interrupting the narration, I may state one other fact. After WP.1663 of 1967 was allowed, he made representation to the Govt that he should be reinstated in service, to which he was informed by order dt.5-11-1971 that he should be deemed to be under suspension and he has no right of reinstatement. Challenging the validity of the said endorsement, the petitioner approached this Court with WP.3044 of 1971. When that writ petition came up for final disposal on 23-1-1974, the Govt Advocate informed the Court that the petitioner was again compulsorily retired, and the only question that then survived for consideration was as to what salary or emoluments should be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension. While accepting the said statement, this Court dismissed the writ petition by observing thus :

(3.) The petitioner did not challenge the validity of the second order of compulsory retirement made on 28-4-1973. He, however, made representation to the Govt after the disposal of the WP.3044 of 1971 requesting the Govt to pass appropriate order regarding his emoluments to which he was entitled to for the period anterior to 28-4-1973. The Govt after considering his representation, made an order dt. 25-7-1974, the concluding portion of which reads :