THE STATE OF MYSORE versus C. N. VIJENDRA RAO

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 321 · Decided: 24-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF MYSORE 
v. 
C. N. VIJENDRA RAO 
October 24, 1975 
321 
A 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, R. S. SARKARIA AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
B; 
Civil Servant-Suspension and continuance in service beyond date of super-, 
annuatio'n-No misconduct proved-Order of Government deeming him to have 
retired Oil actaini11g supera111111ation-Validity. 
Under r. 95(b) of the Mysore Civil Service Rules, a Government seryant 
under suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be required or permitted 
to retire on reaching the age of superannuation but shall be retained in service 
till the enquiry into the charge is conducted and a final order is passed. Rule 
95{b) was reriealed on March 2, 1965. 
The respondent was placed under suspension in February, 1961. and though 
he was due to retire on January '.24, 1962, he was continued in servicei by reason 
of r. 95 (b) to facilitate a departmental enquiry. No departmental action was, 
however, taken against him, but he was prosecuted. 
He was acquitted in June, 
1966. 
On January 24. 1967, the State Government passed an order that he 
should be deemed to have retired from service on January 24, 1962. The High 
Court allowed his writ petition holding that he was entitled to draw his salary 
till March 2, 1965. 
Dismissing the appeal to this Court. 
HELD : ( 1) There is no finding of misconduct nor is there a verdict of 
guilt against the respondent. Since the order of suspension was a bar to his 
compulsory retirement, he continued in service till January 24, 1967. 
The 
Government cannot go back on that position and retire him retrospectively with 
E. 
eil'ect from the date on which he attained the age of 55. [322 H-323 BJ 
(2) The repeal of the rule has no retrospective effec.t. 
Whatever action was 
taken by the Government under r. 95 (b) while that rule was on the statute 
book, would continue to be valid. The physical fact of the respondent's lawful 
continuance in service cannot be wiped out by imagining a putative stare of 
affairs. [323 C-El 
(3) But, the respondent's contention that he was entitled to draw salary 
not till the date of the repeal of the rule, but till .January, 1967, cannot be up: 
~Id. \Jecause, he had not filed a cross-appeal against the judgment repelling 
hts claim. [323 F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 167 of 1969. 
F 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 
24th June, 1968 of the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore in Writ 
G 
Petition No. 1096/67. 
Narayan Nettar for the Appellant. 
B. R. G. K. Achar for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
. 
CHANDRACHUD, J. On January 27, 1961 the Chief Conservator of 
Forests, Mysore, sent aJetter to the Government of Mysore stating that 
large-scale illicit cutting of sandalwood trees in the Forests of Sandur 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
322 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
Range had caused a huge loss to the Government and that such devas-
tation of forests could not have been possible without the connivance 
of the respondent, C. N. Vijedra Rao, who was working as the Divi-
sional Forest Officer. 
By an order dated February 16, 
1961 the 
Government of Mysore placed the respondent under suspension 'pend-
ing inquiry', in order that he may not interfere with the conduct of the 
inquiry or tamper with the documentary evidence. 
· 
The respondent was later prosecuted under section 120-B of the 
Penal Code on the charge that he, along with others, had conspired to 
smuggle sandalwood. 
On June 17, 1966 the First Class Magistrate, 
Bellary, acquitted the respondent. 
On January 24, 1967 the Government of Mysore passed an order 
that the respondent should be deemed to have been retired from 
service on January 24, 1962 being the date on which, on his comple-
tion of the 55th year, he had attained the age of superannuation. On 
May 23, 1967 the respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of 
Mysore challenging the validity of the aforesaid .. order. The writ 
petition was substantially allowed by the High Court on June 24, 1968. 
This appeal by special leave is filed by the State of Mysore against the 
judgment of the High Court. 
Rule 95 (b) of the Mysore Civil Services, which was in operation 
at the relevant time, provided that "a Government servant under 
suspension on a charge of misconduct shall not be required or permitted 
to retire on reaching the date of compulsory retirement, but shall be 
retained in service till the enquiry into the charge

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.