G. DEVARAJAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was compulsorily retired as a result of disciplinary proceedings taken against him as per Exhibit P - 1 dated 25th April 1989. Exhibit P - 1 was set aside by this Court in Exhibit P - 2 Judgment dated 7th June 1994. This Court in Exhibit P - 2 Judgment held that the memo of charges, show cause notice, enquiry report and the order compulsorily retiring the petitioner could not be sustained in law and therefore quashed them. But it was observed that the Government was free to conduct a de novo enquiry, if so advised, to establish the guilt of the petitioner.

(2.) After the Judgment the Government made certain attempt to conduct a de novo enquiry. But this Court did not grant permission and finally it was dropped. Thereafter Exhibit P - 1 order compulsorily retiring the petitioner was revoked as per Exhibit P - 3 dated 3rd November 1995. It was further ordered in Exhibit P - 3 that the period of compulsory retirement (must be the period of suspension) from the date of compulsory retirement from service to the date of his retirement on superannuation (from 5th December 1985 to 31st January 1990) would be treated as if he had continued in service. But it was stated that orders would be issued as to how to treat the above period of absence. Thereafter by Exhibit P - 4 notice the petitioner was requested to show cause why the above period shall not be treated as non duty without forfeiture of past service. The petitioner filed Exhibit P - 5 representation. By Exhibit P - 6 the earlier decision was confirmed treating the period as non duty without forfeiture of past service. It is Exhibit P - 6 that is under challenge in this Original Petition,

(3.) It was argued by Sri. Sugathan that there was no specific provision in the Kerala Service Rules to treat the period of absence as non duty without forfeiture of past service. None of the provisions contained in R.56 of Part I, K. S. R. mentions an order like Exhibit P - 6. According to the petitioner, neither R.56 nor R.56 C is applicable to him. It was further argued that once a Court set aside an order of compulsory retirement or dismissal, there is no question of revoking the original order thereafter by the Government. Thus, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to get full salary during the above period.