(1.) Charge in a disciplinary proceedings is that, petitioner, as power of attorney holder of his mother Smt. Balawa Basappa Gajendragad, filed O.S. No. 40/70 on the file of Civil Judge, Bellary against one Sri H. M. Gurulingappa for recovery of a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and odd, due on a promissory note and was authorised to deal as if it is his own money thereby contravened Rules 16(2) and 21(4) of Government Servant Conduct Rules.
(2.) Inspector General of Prisons, who is the appointing authority for petitioner, after holding an enquiry recorded a finding that charges levelled against him are proved and ordered dismissal from service. In appeal punishment is converted into compulsory retirement. Hence, this Writ Petition challenging orders of Inspector General of Prisons as well as of State Government.
(3.) Charge itself recites that he filed a suit as power of attorney holder of Smt Balawa Basappa. No rule or law prohibits a Government servant from securing legitimate rights of his parents. Undisputedly Smt. Balawa Basappa is an aged mother of petitioner and if petitioner has chosen to assist aged mother in recovering amount due to her, it is impossible to conceive it as violative or contravention of Rules 16(2) and 21(4) of the Conduct Rules. Amount if really belonged to petitioner, then there may be some justification to impose punishment. Undisputedly, money due on pronote executed by Gurulingappa belonged to his mother. Assistance rendered by Government servant to his parent cannot be treated as illegal. If that is so, no aged parent can depend upon his son, a Government servant, to secure him/them their legitimate rights in whatever form known to law. View taken by respondents is opposed to all cannons of law. Finding recorded by Inspector General of Prisons as well as Government to the effect that charges are proved is illegal and perverse. In the result, Writ Petition succeeds, impugned orders quashed. Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits. Rule made absolute.