Back
1966 Supreme(Kar) 168
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
A.R. Somnath Ayyar and B.M. Kalagate, JJ.
Subba Rao (S.) —Appellant
Vs.
State of Mysore and another —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1508 of 1964
Decided on : 29-11-1966
Retirement from Government service upon reaching the age of superannuation under rule 95 leads to the quashing of pending disciplinary proceedings, in the absence of provision for retention in service without physical fitness and public grounds.
Headnote:
Rule 95 - Retirement from Government Service - The court quashed the pending disciplinary proceedings as the petitioner had reached the age of superannuation under rule 95 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, and there was no provision for retention in service after superannuation in the absence of physical fitness and public grounds.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner reached the age of superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, leading to retirement from Government service under rule 95.
Finding of the Court:
The court quashed the pending disciplinary proceedings due to the petitioner's retirement under rule 95, as there was no provision for retention in service after superannuation without physical fitness and public grounds.
Issues: Retirement due to superannuation under rule 95, continuation of pending disciplinary proceedings, and the absence of provision for retention in service after superannuation.
Ratio Decidendi: The retirement under rule 95 upon reaching the age of superannuation led to the quashing of the pending disciplinary proceedings, as there was no provision for retention in service after superannuation without physical fitness and public grounds.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned disciplinary proceedings, with no costs imposed.
Somnath Ayyar, J.—It is indisputable that during the pendency of this writ petition, the petitioner reached the age of superannuation.
2. That being so, under the provisions of rule 95 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, the petitioner has retired from Government service and the pending disciplinary proceeding cannot, therefore, continue.
3. Sri Venkataramayya, the Special Government Pleader, points out that by an Order made by Government on 13 November 1963, it was declared that the petitioner shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal, and that he shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders or until the date of termination of the enquiry.
4. But the fact that he was placed under suspension in that way and not even the fact that it was declared that he shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension from the date of the original order of dismissal can arrest the retirement which comes into being on the attainment of the age of superannuation under rule 95. The only contingency in which such retirement does not come into being is when a Government servant is retained in service after the attainment of the age of superannuation will the sanction of Government if the Government servant is physically fit and in retention is considered necessary on public grounds, and there is record to that effect in writing. There was no such retention in service in the case of the petitioner, and such retention on public grounds might not have been possible in a case where a disciplinary proceeding is pending against a Government servant.
5. Clause (b) of rule 95 which authorized retention for punishment in a pending disciplinary proceeding was deleted from the rules on 2 February, 1965, and so, no appeal could be made to that clause which was not existing when the petitioner attained the age of superannuation.
6. So, it should follow that the impugned disciplinary proceedings cannot continue and we quash them. It is on this short ground that this writ petition is allowed.
7. In the circumstances, no costs.
