K. Ramanathan vs The Secretary to the Government, Health and Family Planning Department and Another

K. Veeraswami, C.J.—This was a case of dismissal of the Appellant from service. Ho was lately Lay Secretary and Treasurer in

Government Raja Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar Lying in Hospital, Madras. He was due to retire on July 20, 1965; but on certain charges of

corruption, he was kept under suspension with effect from July 10, 1965. After a full enquiry conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary

Proceedings which was the District and Sessions Judge, he was dismissed from service by an order, dated September 23. 1965.

It is not contended that the formal opportunities contemplated by Article 311 of the Constitution were not given. But what is said for the

Appellant is that, though he was to retire from July 20, 1965, no formal order was made continuing his service after that date for the purpose of

continuing the enquiry. Palaniswamy J., who disposed of the petition, declined to accept this contention. In our view, the learned Judge was right.

Under Rule 56(a) of the Fundamental Rules, the date of retirement which is compulsory is the date when the Government servant attains the age of

When he reaches that point, he shall not be retained any longer in service. He can, however, be retained with the sanction of the Government

on public grounds recorded in writing. But in no case, retention can go beyond sixty years except in very special circumstances. Rule 56(c) reads:

A Government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be required or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of

compulsory retirement, but should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is concluded and a final order passed there on by the

competent authority.

This rule, as we are inclined to think, is in the nature of a proviso to Rule 56(a), or of an exception to the mandatory requirement of retirement on

attainment of the age of 55 years. In our opinion, Rule 56(c) does not require a written order of extension. In fact, no question of extension arises

in a case to which Clause (c) of Rule 56 has application. Though that the proceeds on the basis that a Government servant under suspension on a

charge of misconduct should not be permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement, that itself assumes that, in as much as he

is not permitted to retire, he will continuo beyond the age of 55. The rule also says that the retention will last until the enquiry into the charge is

concluded and a final order is passed thereon by the competent authority. This rule, in effect, provides for an automatic extension of service

without there being an express order therefore. The word should not be required or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory

retirement are only consistent"" with such an interpretation and so too the following words in Rule 56(c).

Our attention was invited to a judgment of the Mysore High Court in Rajasekariah v. State AIR 1968 Mys. 206. But it appears that the decision

was based on a concession made by Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (UOI), nor The State of West Bengal Vs. Nripendra Nath Bagchi, touches

the question-In the Utter case, the Supreme Court made a pointed reference to the fact that Rule 50(d) equivalent to rule 56(c) with which we are

concerned, was not incorporated in the West Bangal Service Rules. We are of the view, therefore, that the contention before in, namely, that

before the order of dismissal was made the Appellant had retired from service, cannot be accepted.

It is next contended that due opportunity was not given to the Appellant at the enquiry, in as much as a copy of the complaint on which the

disciplinary proceedings started was not given to him. Also, it is said that some of the witnesses who were cited for the prosecution so to speak

were not called for and copies of some documents were not furnished to him. But the charges are very simple ones which accused the Appellant of

having received bribes from the named individuals on the dates specified. Throe of the witnesses examined for the prosecution each had given

evidence of Slaving given illegal gratification to the Appellant. These witnesses were allowed to be cross-examined and, in fact, the Appellant

cross-examined thorn. This evidence has been accepted by the Tribunal. We do not think that, even assuming that a copy of the complaint and

copies of some documents were not furnished to the Appellant, in the circumstances and on the facts of this case, any prejudice had been caused

to the Appellant. The charges, as seen from the report of the Disciplinary Tribunal, are substantially established.

We see no reason to interfere. The appeal is dismissed. No costs.