LexSTATE OF MYSORE versus S. V. G. IYENGAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H STATE OF MYSORE 1'. S. V. G. IYENGAR September 1, 1969 LJ. c. SHAii, v. RAMASll'AMI AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.J 1'!ysore Ciril Serrice Rules, 1958. r. 52-0fficer stopped fronz crossing t:Jjiciency bar-D1.H:iplinary proceedingc; droppe,I l:1t::r and nllo1vc. 1 to retir.e -lVhet!Jer officer dee111ed to li:n·.c c11ttun1aricc1Jly cro.,·sed the !'.fficiency har -H'hether speciul order neces.<oi':,-. ·rhc respondent \Vas v,rorking n'i an Ex·2cutivc Engineer in the Hyd~rabad State. In 1955, the Public Servic,~ Cn111mi~si'Jn rccomn1enJcd that : (1) he should ·be stoppcJ fro111 crossln~ the cttich::ncy bar \Vith cff~ct from Februorv ~. 1952; and (2) a sum of Rs. 23,371 should be recovered fron1 his S<:\lary on account of loss caused to the Government by his negli~ g-.::ncc. On Novcn1hcr 1, 1956 the Stntcs' Reorganisation Act came into tor..:~ a;1d the respondent \vas a11ottcd to the appcllant-St:-.tc. Even after the respondent completed the ng·e of .55 years in 1960, he \\'rl.S continued in service by the appellant-Stall~. hut 1111dcr s1~~pension pending: con1pletion of the disciplinary pro~edings against hi111. but in l 961, he \\'as µcrmitted to retire and all the disciplinary proceedings pending against hin1 \vere dropped altogether. After his rctircrrient. he fik:d a \\:rit petition for a declaration that he \Vas stopped fron1 crossing the efficiency bar onl~ 1 be- cause the Goyernmcnl wanted to rcin1burse itself for the loss caused by the rc'\pondent, that consequent upon the dropp:ng of the proceedi;i~s against him, he should be dcen1ed not to have caus·:d any 1os" to tile Gov- ernment, and so, to hav~ crossed the l~ffi.ciency bar on Fcbru~ny 9i 1952. and therefore. th~ incrcn1ents \Vithhckl should be rc<;torc<l and the increased salary should· bo= taken into account in fixing his rcnsion. The High Court allo\.ved the petition. In appeal to this Court, HELD : Merely becau<;e the disciplinary proceedings against him were dropped for certain reasons it did not automatically foJlov.1 that lhe res· pendent was nllo,vcd to cross the ellicicncy bar. Under thi Civil Service Rules in Hyderabad and in Mysore, an express order of the appropriate authority is necessary before an officer was allov..,ed to cross the efficiency bar and no such order wa~ passed in the present case. [161 D-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURJSD!CfION : Civil Appeal No. 1312 of 1966. . - Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order, dated October 1, 1962 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 1280 of 1961. Niren De, Attorney-General, S. S . .Tavali and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant. B. R. L. lyeng~r and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J. This appeal is brought by special leave from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated October 1, 1962 in 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1970] 2 S.C.R. Writ Petition No. 1280 of 1961 directing the appe!lant to deter- mine the salary payable to the respondent on the basis that he had been permitted to cross the efficiency bar in time scale of pay of Rs. 900-50-1200-EB-75-1500 in Osmania Sikka rupees. The High Court also directed by the same judgment that the incre- ments above the efficiency bar be withheld by the appe!lant should now be paid to him and the salary sc determined should be taken into account for determining the amount of pension payable to the respondent in accordance with the relevant rules. The responde,nt was working as an Executive Engineer in the Public Works Department of the Hyderabad State and was in charge of certain project works during the period June 1949 to September 1950. On the basis of some information the explana- tion of the respondent was ca!led for in respect of certain a!leged irregularities in the execution of certain project works. The respondent sent in his explanations dated June 14, 195 l and December 10, 1951 to the Superintending Engineer, Munirabad. In October 1953 the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that some loss had been caused in respect of four projects more due to lack of foresight and organising capacity on the part of the respondent than to any intentional misappropriation and a show cause notice was issued on March 11, 1955 asking the respon- dent to show cause why he should not be stopped from crossing the efficiency bar with effect from February 9, 1952 and why a sum of Rs. 23,371/- should not be rec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.