Case: M. Narasimhachar Vs. State Of Mysore

The appellant was in the service of the Mysore State. In 1951 he was the manager of the Government Reserve Foodgrains from Pandavapura. He was transferred from Pandavapura on 15-5-1951, and handed over charge of the Depot to one Shri Srinivasachar that there was shortage of 27 pallas of ragi in the stock handed over to him. Thereupon an enquiry was held by the Sub-Division Officer. The appellant was dissatisfied with the enquiry as according to him it had not been properly conducted. He therefore complained against the Sub-Division Officer and also brought it to the notice of the higher authorities that certain rooms containing stock of gunny bags had been sealed and the seals were not allowed to be broken till 24-3-1952, with the result that a large number of gunny bags which were stocked there had deteriorated and had been eaten by white-ants. It appears that these preliminary enquiries went on till August 1952 when the appellant was appointed Special Revenue Inspector under the Assistant Director of Food Supplies. He went to take over charge of the new post in September 1952 but was not allowed to do so by an order of 12-9-1952. He then approached the higher authorities but was suspended on 29-12-1952. On 4-4-1953, the following charges were framed against him(1) that he had taken 11 months to hand over charge of the Reserve Depot to his successor with a view to concealing the irregularities in the management of the Depot;(2) that he had failed to hand over detailed charge by counting the gunny bags;(3) that he had failed to obtain specific orders of the Amildar to stock the new gunny bags in the mill and his object was to effect surreptitious sale of the gunny bags;(4) that he had not maintained a regular account in regard to the bags and that he had failed to get them checked by superior officers to escape his accountability for the loss of about 11,000 bags;(5) that he had deliberately mixed husk with ragi and thereby cheated government to the extent of 27 pallas of ragi ;(6) that he had manipulated the account; and(7) that he had failed to get the stock checked every month by the Amildar and other superior officers2. The appellant submitted a reply to the charges and made several representations to various officers in that behalf. Eventually he received a notice on 23-11-1953, from the Director of Food Supplies directing him to appear in connection with the enquiry relating to the shortage in the Reserve Depot. Subsequently, an enquiry was held by the Personal Assistant to the Director who made a report thereafter. Finally, a notice was issued to the appellant by the Government on 30-12-1954, that six of the seven charges framed against him (except the charge relating to 27 pallas of ragi) had been proved on enquiry and he was asked to show cause within one week from the date of the receipt of the notice why he should not be compulsorily retired from service, why the period of suspension should not be treated as such leave to which he might be entitled and why the leave allowances due to him, his insurance amount and 50 per cent. of his pension should not be adjusted towards the amount due from him on account of the shortage of gunny bags valued at Rs. 5,215. The appellant submitted a long explanation in reply to this notice. In the meantime the appellant had attained the age of 55 years. Therefore, the Government passed an order on 18-3-1955, in the following terms"(1) That Shri M. Narasimhachar be retired from service from the date on which he attained superannuation and granted under Art. 302 (b) of the Mysore Services Regulations (hereinafter referred to as Regulations), a reduced pension of two-thirds the amount to which he would ordinarily be entitled in view of the irregularities committed by him(2) That the period of suspension be treated as leave to which he is entitled(3) That the cost of 10,430 gunny bags found short be recovered from him at the rate of eight annas per bag(4) That the leave allowances due to him, his insurance amount and death-cum-gratuity amount, if any, be adjusted towards the amount due to him(5) That the balance after adjusting the leave allowances, insurance amount and death-cum-gratuity amount, if any, be recovered in monthly installments by deducting fifty per cent. of the pension as ordered in (1) above."3. Thereafter the appellant filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the High Court on 5-9-1955. His main contention was that the order of the Government retiring him was not in accordance with articles 294 to 297 of the Regulations and the Revised Pension Rules of the same Regulations. He also contended that the order of the Government reducing his pension to twothirds of that to which he would be ordinarily entitled was invalid as it was not mentioned in the notice given to him on 30-12-1954, and that this reduction of pension was violative of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. Finally he contended that the order of Government treating his period of suspension as period of such leave as might be due to him and recovery of Rs. 5,215 from the amounts due to him from the Government and his pension was illegal and arbitrary. The petition was opposed by the State of Mysore and its contention was that the order passed was strictly in accordance with the Regulations and that in no case Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution had any application and as such the reliefs sought by the appellant could not be granted on a writ petition. The High Court held that Art. 311 (2) had no application and that the order passed by the Government was in accordance with the Regulations and that it was not possible to give any relief to the appellant. Consequently, the petition was dismissed. The appellant then applied for a certificate to enable him to appeal to this Court, which was refused. He followed it by asking for special leave from this Court which was granted; and that is how the matter has come up before us.

Court's reasoning:
We are of opinion that this is not the right interpretation of article 297.Article 297 is complementary to article 294 (a), which gives Government the power of keeping Government servants in service beyond the age of 55 years. Article 297 allows the Government servant, if the Government wants to keep him in service after 55, to opt for retirement. It does not mean that it is entirely at the option of the Government servant to continue beyond the age of 55 years and the Government cannot retire him at that age if he does not exercise the option. Therefore, it was open to Government to retire a Government servant at the age of 55 years if it thought that the person was not efficient to be kept in further service.In that view of the matter, the order of Government dated 18-3-1955, by which the appellant was retired from the date on which he completed fifty-five years of age was in accordance with articles 294 and 297 of the RegulationsWe are of opinion that this again is a complete misinterpretation of this rule.This rule must be read as supplementary to articles 294 and 297 of the Regulations relating to retirement of public servants. What it contemplates is that if a public servant has completed 30 years service though he may not have attained the age of 55 years he can ask the Government to retire him after giving three months notice. The rule further contemplates that Government may retire an officer after he has completed 25 years service or attained 50 years of age, i.e., before he is normally due for retirement at the age of 55 years. It does not mean that when once the officer is past the age of 50 years or has completed 25 years of service he must always be given a notice of three months before he can be retired at 55 years or afterwards. This is a special provision relating to those cases where the Government wishes to retire an officer before the ordinary age of retirement, namely 55 years.The appellant therefore cannot claim that the order of 18-3-1955, is illegal because it did not give three months notice. So far therefore as the retirement Rules are concerned, the Government order retiring the appellant is in no way against those rulesIt is enough to say that this contention is also baseless.Article 311 (2) does not deal with the question of pension at all; it deals with three situations, namely, (I) dismissal, (ii) removal, and (iii) reduction in rankReduction in pension being a matter of discretion with the Government, it cannot therefore be said that it committed any breach of the Regulations in reducing the pension of the appellantIt has nothing to do with reduction of pension, which is specifically provided for in Art. 302 of the RegulationsIt is enough to say that there is a provision in the Regulations providing for this, which is Art. 216-A.Under that article the Government reserved to itself the right to order the recovery from the pension and compassionate allowances of a Government servant of any amount on account of losses found in judicial or departmental proceedings to have been caused to Government by the negligence or fraud of such officer during his service. There is a proviso to this article which says that departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the officer was on duty, shall not be instituted except under certain circumstances, which we need not detail hereThere is no force in this contention because the proviso only comes into force when the departmental proceedings take place after the officer has given up service. It does not apply to a case like the present where the departmental proceedings took place while the appellant was still in serviceThis again is wrong for what apply to him are the Regulations and not the Fundamental Rules of the Government of India8. We are therefore of opinion that there is no force in this appeal.