LexM. NARASIMHACHAR versus THE STATE OF MYSORE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 981 the appellant that the respondent's director told the appellant's manager that the respondent had adopted the name 'Gluvita' to indicate that in the manu- facture of its biscuits glucose was used. Those state- ments on behalf of th.e appellant are not denied by the respondent. So, a trade connection between glu- cose and biscuits would appear to be established. We are therefore of opinion that the commodities concerned in the present case are so connected as to make confusion or deception likely in view of the similarity of the two trade marks. 'Ve think that_ the decision of Desai, J., was right. In the result, we set aside the order of the learned appellate Judges of the High Court and restore that of Desai, J. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The appellant will get the costs before the appellate Judges in the High Court and in this Court. Appeal allowed. M. NAR.ASIMHACHAR v. THE S'rATE OF MYSORE (B. P. SINHA, C.J., JAFER IMAM, J. L. KAPUR, K. N. W ANCHOO and K. C. DAS GUPTA, ,TJ.) State Seri•ice-Servant found guilty of various irregularities on enquiry-Retirement on superannuation-Reduction of pension- Recavery of loss-Legality-Requirement of notice-Mysore Service Regulations, arts. 294, 297, 2I6, 302, Rule 2(ii), Appendix A- Constitution of India, Art. 3n(2). The appellant was the Manager of a Mysore Government Reserve Foodgrains Depot and was later on appointed Special Revenue Inspector under the Assistant Director of Food Supplies. He was, however, not allowed to join his new post and an order • of suspension was passed against him. Seven charges in respect of various irregularities committed by him were framed against him relating to the period when he held the former post. An enquiry was held and six of them were found proved. A final notice was served on him to show cause why he should not be compulsorily retired and he did so. In the meantime he reached the age of superannuation and the Government passed the follow- ing order against him,- 124 1959 Corn Products Re;fining Co. v. Shangrila .Food Products Ltd. Sarkar]. I959 October zz. I959 M. N arasimhachar v. The State of Mysore 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960(1)] " That Shri M. N arasimhachar be retired from service from the date on which he attained superannuation and granted under Art. 302(b) of the Mysore Services 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-cunt-gratuity amount, if any, be recovered in monthly instalments by deducting fifty per cent. of the pension as ordered in (i) above. " Against the said order the appellant moved the High Conrt under Art. 226 of the Constitution. His contention was that the said order was contrary to arts. 294 to 297 of the Mysore Services Regulations and its Revised Pension Rules and contravened Art. 3rr(2) of the Constitution in that no notice thereunder had been served on him. On behalf of the State it was claimed that the said order was in conformity with the Regulations and that Art. 3rr(2) had no application. The High Court found in favour of the State and dismissed the petition. Held, that the decision of the High Court must be affirmed. It was not correct. to coritend that art. 297 of the Mysore Services Regulations left the option with the public servant whether or not to retire at the age of 55. That article is comple- mentary to and must be read with art. 294(a) of the Regulation which fixes the age of retirement for such servant at 55 and empowers the Government to retain him beyond that age. What art. 297 of the Regulations, therefore, really does, is to allow the Government servant, in case the Government wants to retain him in service even after the age of 55, to opt for retirement. It does not affect the power of the Government to retire a person, whom it considers inefficient for further service, at that age. Rule 2(ii) of the Revised Pension Rules in Appendix A of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.