Case: State Of Mysore Vs. S.V.G. Iyengar

service and should also be asked to make good sum of Rs. 4, 576/- being the amount of loss caused to Government in the above connection. The respondent challenged this order by a writ petition on the ground that the Enquiry Officer at Hyderabad had exonerated him of all the charges excepting one and also. because the report of the Enquiry Officer was not furnished to the respondent. The High Court of Mysore allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the Government. Thereafter the Mysore Government took further steps in the matter and the respondent presented several other writ petitions in the Mysore High Court impinging the subsequent action of the Mysore Government. It is unnecessary for the purpose of the purpose of the present appeal to set out the orders of the Mysore Government and the writ petitions filed by the respondent and the Orders made by the High Court except to state that by an order made on December 10, 1960 he respondent who was to have retired with effect from October 27, 1960, the date on which he completed the age of 55 years was continued in service but under suspension pending completion of the disciplinary proceedings against him and that the Government by a subsequent order dated May 19, 1961 revoked the previous order of December 10, 1960 and permitted the respondent to retire dropping altogether the disciplinary proceedings against him. After his retirement the respondent flied writ petition No. 1280 of 1961 praying for declaration that he should be regarded as having crossed the efficiency bar in his pay scale on February 9, 1952 and that he should be given all the increments after the efficiency bar in the pay scale of an Executive Engineer and that he should be paid the difference and his pension should be fixed on the basis of enhanced salary claimed by him. The claim of the respondent was resisted by the Mysore State on the ground that under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules a specific order ought to be made permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar. The High Court rejected the contention of the appellant and held that consequent upon the dropping of the proceeding against the respondent the increment withheld by way of penalty should be restored and the increased salary should be taken into account in fixing the amount of pension payable to the respondent.3. Rule 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Services Rules, 1952 reads as follows:"Where an efficiency bar is prescribed in a time scale the increment next above the bar shall not be given to a Government servant without the specific sanction of the authority empowered to withhold increments."Rule 52 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules, 1958 is in the same language. as r. 38 of the Hyderabad Civil Service Rules.4. On behalf of the respondent it was contended that the with holding of the increment of the respondent at the efficiency bar was intended to operate as a penalty for alleged misconduct. It was said that upon the facts of the case the only conclusion possible was , that the Government wanted to stop the respondent at the efficiency bar in the time scale with a view to reimburse itself at the expense of the respondent the loss said to have been caused by him to the Government. It was, therefore, argued that after the dropping of disciplinary proceedings against the respondent without recording any finding of guilt no penalty could be imposed. It was Contended that once the Government had taken the decision to stop the respondent at the efficiency bar by way of penalty it must be held that the Government had waived their right to stop the respondent at the efficiency bar for administrative reasons under r. 38. In our opinion there is no warrant for the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent. It is manifest that in view of the language of r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules and r. 52 of the Mysore Rules before the respondent could claim payment of increments next above the bar it is necessary that the Government should make a special order sanctioning such payment. It is true that disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were dropped but the result claimed by the respondent cannot automatically follow a result of the dropping of the disciplinary proceedings. In this connection the Attorney General pointed out that the notice dated March 16, 1955 against the respondent asked him to show cause why: ( 1 ) he should not be stopped from crossing. the efficiency bar and (2) why a sum of Rs. 23, 371-14-2 should not be recovered from him on account of loss caused to the Government by his negligence. The stoppage at efficiency bar had no connection with the recovery of loss sustained by the Government and it cannot, therefore, be said that the Government wanted to impose the efficiency bar because it wanted to reimburse itself for the loss caused by the respondent. So far as the language of r. 38 is concerned it is manifest that an express order of the appropriate authority is necessary before the respondent is allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the respondent that the Government must be deemed to have given specific sanction under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar merely because disciplinary proceedings against him had been dropped for certain reasons.5. In the High Court the case was argued by both the parties on the assumption that r. 38 applied to the case of the respondent. During the hearing of the appeal in this Court it was stated by Mr. Iyengar that when the respondent became due for crossing the efficiency bar r. 38 as it stands at present was not in operation. But it was said that a rule similar to r. 38 was in operation at the relevant time.6.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In our opinion there is no warrant for the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent. It is manifest that in view of the language of r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules and r. 52 of the Mysore Rules before the respondent could claim payment of increments next above the bar it is necessary that the Government should make a special order sanctioning such payment. It is true that disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were dropped but the result claimed by the respondent cannot automatically follow a result of the dropping of the disciplinarystoppage at efficiency bar had no connection with the recovery of loss sustained by the Government and it cannot, therefore, be said that the Government wanted to impose the efficiency bar because it wanted to reimburse itself for the loss caused by the respondent. So far as the language of r. 38 is concerned it is manifest that an express order of the appropriate authority is necessary before the respondent is allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the respondent that the Government must be deemed to have given specific sanction under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar merely because disciplinary proceedings against him had been dropped for certainour opinion there is no warrant for the contentions advanced on behalf of the respondent. It is manifest that in view of the language of r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules and r. 52 of the Mysore Rules before the respondent could claim payment of increments next above the bar it is necessary that the Government should make a special order sanctioning such payment. It is true that disciplinary proceedings against the respondent were dropped but the result claimed by the respondent cannot automatically follow a result of the dropping of the disciplinaryn this connection the Attorney General pointed out that the notice dated March 16, 1955 against the respondent asked him to show cause why: ( 1 ) he should not be stopped from crossing. the efficiency bar and (2) why a sum of Rs. 23,should not be recovered from him on account of loss caused to the Government by hisge at efficiency bar had no connection with the recovery of loss sustained by the Government and it cannot, therefore, be said that the Government wanted to impose the efficiency bar because it wanted to reimburse itself for the loss caused by the respondent. So far as the language of r. 38 is concerned it is manifest that an express order of the appropriate authority is necessary before the respondent is allowed to cross the efficiency bar. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the contention of the respondent that the Government must be deemed to have given specific sanction under r. 38 of the Hyderabad Rules permitting the respondent to cross the efficiency bar merely because disciplinary proceedings against him had been dropped for certain