K. RAMANATHAN Vs. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND FAMILY PLANING DEPT. GOVT. OF TAMILNADU, MADRAS AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a case of dismissal of the appellant from service. He was lately Lay Secretary and Treasurer in Government Raja Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar Lying in hospital, Madras. He was due to retire on 20th July 1965, but on certain charges of corruption, he was kept under suspension with effect from 10th July 1965. After a full enquiry was conducted by the Tribunal far Disciplinary Proceedings which was the District and Sessions Judge, he was dismissed from service by an order dated 23rd September 1965. It is not contended that the formal opportunities contemplated by Art. 311 of the Constitution were not given. But what is said for the appellant is that, though he was to retire from 20th July 1965, no formal order was made continuing his service after that date for the purpose of continuing the enquiry. Palaniswamy, J., who disposed of the petition, declined to accept this contention. In our view, the learned Judge was right. Under R. 56 (a) of the Fundamental Rules, the date of retirement which is compulsory is the date when the Government servant attains the age of 55. When he reaches that point, he shall not be retained any longer in service. He can, however, be retained with the sanction of the Government on public grounds recorded in writing. But, in no case, retention can go beyond sixty years except in very special circumstances. R. 56 (c) reads: -

(2.) Our attention was invited to a judgment of the Mysore High Court in K.S. Rajasekhariah v/s. State of Mysore, A.I.R. 1968 MYS. 206, But it appears that the decision was based on a concession made by counsel for Government. Neither Khemchand v/s. Union of India, :, A.I.R. (1963) S.C. 687 nor State of West Bengal v/s. Nripendranath : A.I.R. (1966) S.C. 447 touches the question. In the latter case, the Supreme Court made a pointed reference to the fact that R. 56 (d) equivalent to R. 56 (c) with which we are concerned, was not incorporated in the West Bengal Service Rules. We are of the view, therefore, that the contention before us, namely, that before the order of dismissal was made, the appellant had retired from service, cannot be accepted.