Karnataka High Court
Dr B O Hanumanthappa vs State Of Karnataka on 25 June, 2024
Author: B M Shyam Prasad
Bench: B M Shyam Prasad
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:23378
WP No. 15429 of 2017
C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 15429 OF 2017 (S-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 15428 OF 2017 (S-DE)
IN WP NO. 15429/2017
BETWEEN:
DR B. O. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O HIREHALLI OBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED AS DIRECTOR,
BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA
B V K S LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
Digitally CHANDRAVALLI NAGARA,
signed by
NARASIMHA CHITRADURGA 577501.
MURTHY
VANAMALA
Location:
HIGH ...PETITIONER
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (BY SRI. M.S. BHAGWAT, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SATHISH K.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HELATH AND
FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:23378
WP No. 15429 of 2017
C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRICIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A & E)
KARNATAKA ,
POST BOX NO.5329
PARK HOUSE ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE 560009.
4. BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AN AUTONOMOUS OF GOVERNMENT OF
KARNATAKA ,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
BIDAR DISTRICT , BIDAR 585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1-R3;
SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS FROM THE RESPONDENTS; DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO SETTLE PENSION AND ALL
RETIREMENT BENEFITS, INCLUDING DCRG, GRATUITY,
LEAVE ENCASHMENT AND OTHER MONETARY
BENEFITS, ALONG WITH INTEREST @ 12% P.A. FOR
DELAYED PAYMENT, FORTHWITH TO THE PETITIONER.
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:23378
WP No. 15429 of 2017
C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
IN WP NO. 15428/2017
BETWEEN:
DR. B. O. HANUMANTHAPPA
S/O HIREHALLI OBAPPA
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
RETIRED AS DIRECTOR,
BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT
SRI RAGHAVENDRA NILAYA
B V K S LAYOUT, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
CHANDRAVALLI NAGARA,
CHITRADURGA 577501.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.S. BHAGWAT., SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SATHISH K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE SERVICES
(MEDICAL EDUCATION)
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001.
2. BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES
AN AUTONOMOUS INSTITUTION OF
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
RERPESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF ADMINIRATIVE OFFICER
BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR 585401.
3. THE GOVERNING COUNCIL
BIDAR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:23378
WP No. 15429 of 2017
C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
BIDAR DISTRICT, BIDAR 585401.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.GOPALA KRISHNA SOODI, AGA FOR R1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 17.04.2017 NOTICE TO R2 & R3
ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM THE R-1 PERTAINING TO THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.6.2016 AND THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.6.2016; QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13.6.2016 [ANNEXURE-A) AS
WELL AS IMPUGNED CHARGE MEMO DATED 13.6.2016
(ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE R-1 AND GRANT ALL
CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS TO THE PETITIONER.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is initially appointed as a Medical Officer with the Department of Health and Family Welfare Services and he is later sent on deputation to the Department of Medical Education with further deputation to M/s Bidar Institution of Medical Sciences [for short, 'the Autonomous Institution']. The petitioner was working as an Assistant professor even prior to his deputation with the Autonomous -5- NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 Institution. The petitioner, who has retired from service, is aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings and for direction to settle his retiral benefits.
2. The petitioner, in the petition in W.P.No.15428/2017 has impugned the State Government's order dated 13.06.2016 for initiation of departmental proceedings under Rule 214 of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules [for short, 'the KCSR'] and the Article of Charges of the even date, and in W.P.No.15429/2017, the petitioner has sought for directions to the State Government and the Autonomous Institution to settle pension and all retirement benefits along with interest.
3. This Court by its order dated 07.12.2018 has disposed of the writ petition in W.P.No.15429/2017 opining that the petitioner is a civil servant, and as such, his remedy would be under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 [for short, 'the Tribunals Act'], but with the petitioner calling in question this Court's order in an intra- Court appeal in W.A.No.19/2019 [S-RES], a Division Bench of this Court has quashed the order dated 07.12.2018 remitting the writ petition for reconsideration in accordance with law in terms of certain observations therein.
4. The Division Bench's observation is that this Court has not taken into consideration the Autonomous Institution's Rules and Regulations [as also its byelaws] in concluding that the petitioner is a civil servant who must avail his remedy under the Tribunals Act, and that unless these are considered, there cannot be any adjudication on whether the petitioner was in employment with the State Government or the Autonomous Institution. The circumstances in which the present writ petitions arise, without adverting to the reasons of the Article of Charge, could be encapsulated thus. -7-
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
5. The petitioner is permitted by the Department of Medical Education to participate in the selection process for the appointment of the First Dean and Director with the Autonomous Institution as is contemplated under the provisions of Rule 252 of the KCSR, and the petitioner has accordingly participated in the selection process as mentioned in the notification issued by the Autonomous Institution. The petitioner is selected, and this Court must observe that if it is stated on behalf of the petitioner that given the lapse of time, he does not have papers relating to his appointment, on behalf of the Autonomous Institution it is stated that the relevant file is lost in a fire accident. As such, the details of the petitioner's appointment in the year 2009 are not brought on record.
5.1 After the expiry of the initial period for which the petitioner is appointed as the First Dean and Director, the Autonomous Institution -8- NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 has once again invited application with the petitioner successfully participating in the same and he is appointed as the Director in the year 2011 for the next three years. However, before the expiry of this term the petitioner is served with the Government's Order dated 15.02.2014 informing him that because of certain allegations against him which are found to be prima facie true, he is relieved from the post of the Director and that he must report to his original post.
5.2 The petitioner has challenged this order in question in W.P.No.202372/2014 [S- RES], and this Court, while considering the petitioner's request for interim order, has stayed the operation of the Government Order dated 15.02.2014 but with the clarification that the petitioner shall not be assigned with financial powers except signing salary bills. -9-
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 This interim order is vacated, and the petitioner has carried such order in challenge in an intra-Court appeal in W.A.No.1175/2014.
5.3 This intra-Court appeal is allowed, and the interim order granted at the first instance in W.P.No.202372/2014 [S-RES] is reinstated. The petitioner has continued as the Director of the Autonomous Institution consequent to such interim order until he has attained the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014. The writ petition in W.P.No.202372/2014 [S-RES] is ultimately disposed of on 25.11.2015 observing that the Government order dated 15.02.2014 is not given effect to and it has lost its efficacy with the petitioner attaining the age of superannuation. This Court has also clarified that the disposal of the writ petition would not
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 affect the petitioner's entitlement to all the benefits that must be paid to him in law consequent to his superannuation.
6. The petitioner after this conclusion of proceedings is served with the impugned Article of Charges. Sri. M. S. Bhagwat, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner, has canvassed before this Court the following grounds [which are recorded by this Court on 07.06.2024] to assert that this Court must conclude that the petitioner ceased to be a civil servant with his appointment as the first Dean-Cum- Director of the Autonomous Institution and he has retired accordingly.
[a] The petitioner, though initially appointed as a Medical Officer with the Department of Health and Family Welfare and later sent on deputation to the Department of Medical Education, he has participated in the selection process pursuant to a public invitation issued by the institution. The petitioner's candidature is considered by the Institution
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 according to its Rules and Regulations 2006/2013 [Regulations].
[b] The State Government is indicated as "Appointing Authority" in the definition of an "Appointing Authority" to the post of Director in the aforesaid Regulations but Regulation 18 clearly indicate that the Governing Council would be the authority to finalize the selection process for the appointment to the post of Director, oversee such process and also appointment but subject to the approval by the Government. The Government is shown as "the Appointing Authority" only because of certain supervision despite autonomous status to the institution.
[c] The petitioner in terms of the Rule 20[a] of the Karnataka Civil Services Rules could not have carried lien over the original post because his appointment with the Institution is against a tenure post, and even otherwise, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K.Kacker v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences [1996] 10 SCC 734].
[d] If the petitioner is appointed under the Regulations of the Institution without any
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 lien over the post held by him previously, and his salaries are disbursed by the Institution, the petitioner will have to be necessarily held to be an employee of the Institution, and this cannot be changed only because CAG, which examines the expenditure of public fund, has opined that the petitioner cannot be held to be a Government Employee.
7. Smt. Sumana Baliga, the learned counsel for the Autonomous Institution, who is supported by Sri Gopala Krishna Soodi, the learned Additional Government Advocate, contends that the question whether the petitioner continued in employment with the State Government after his appointment with the Autonomous Institution is dependent on whether the petitioner enjoyed lien over the post he held with the Department of Health and Family Welfare [original post] while he was in employment with the Institution. The learned counsel contends that the petitioner's lien over the original post was not discharged or terminated with the petitioner's appointment with the Autonomous Institution, and
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 therefore, the petitioner has retired as civil servant in employment with the State Government.
8. Smt. Sumana Baliga canvasses that as contemplated under the provisions of Rule 20(a) of the KCSR, the petitioner's lien over the original post only stood suspended with his appointment with the Autonomous Institution, and that this suspended lien is revived by virtue of Rule 20(a) of the KCSR upon the petitioner ceasing to hold the post of the First Dean - Director in the Autonomous Institution, and therefore, this Court must hold that the petitioner continued to be in employment with the State Government. The learned counsel submits that as such, the petitioner' remedy as against the impugned initiation of the departmental proceedings and for any other financial benefits must necessarily be considered under the Tribunals Act.
9. In rejoinder, Sri M. S. Bhagwat submits that the petitioner indisputably has been permitted to
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 participate in the selection process for the post of First Dean - Director in the Autonomous Institution under the provisions of Rule 252 of the KCSR, that the consequence of the permission is that there would be resignation as is contemplated under Sub- clause [b] thereof but with protection of pay, and that therefore, this Court, notwithstanding the rival contentions, must hold that the petitioner did not have any lien over the original post.
10. Sri M. S. Bhagwat also submits that the petitioner, with his appointment as the Director of the Autonomous Institution and with the suspension of his lien under Rule 20(a) of the KCSR over the original post, acquired lien over the post of a Director [a tenure post] and this lien could be discharged only if he was permanently appointed against another substantive post. The learned Senior Counsel argues that admittedly the petitioner is not appointed after he completed his two tenures as the Director with the
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 Autonomous Institution and that the fall out is that the petitioner could have held lien only against the post of the Director and not over the original post.
11. Smt. Sumana Baliga next submits that the petitioner's appointment in the year 2007 as the First Dean-cum-Director is under Regulation 18 of the Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences, Bidar Rules and Regulations, 2013 [for short 'the Regulations'] and his subsequent appointment as the Director in the year 2011 is according to the procedure contemplated under Rule 18(3) of the Regulations. The learned counsel relies upon these assertions to emphasize that the petitioner was appointed at the first instance by the State Government in exercise of the powers under Rule 18(1) and that this indicates that he was so appointed as an employee under the Department of Health and Family Welfare/Department of Medical Education and this
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 factum must also prevail with this Court in answering the aforesaid question.
12. This Court must observe that both the petitioner and the Autonomous Institution, for respective reasons, are unable to place on record the details of the process and the manner in which the petitioner is appointed as the First Dean-Cum- Director with the Autonomous institution. As such, the relevance of the Autonomous Institution's Regulations for the purposes of the present controversy is greatly diluted.
13. In view of the above, the questions for consideration will be as follows:
[A] Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds canvassed, the petitioner can be held to have continued in employment with the State Government, and therefore, a civil servant, and
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 [B] If the petitioner cannot be held to be a civil servant, the relief that the petitioner would be entitled to in these petitions.
The answers to these questions must necessarily be based on whether this Court could opine that the petitioner's lien over the original post, which admittedly was suspended when he was appointed as the First Dean- Director of the Autonomous Institution, is revived with the ceasing of his appointment with the Autonomous Institution.
14. The provisions of Rule 19 and 20 of the KCSR provisions read as under:
Rule 19
19. Unless his lien is suspended under Rule 20, a Government servant holding substantively a permanent post retains a lien on that post-
(a) While performing duties of that post;
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
(b) while on foreign service, or holding a temporary post or officiating in another posts;
(c) during joining time on transfer to another post; unless he is transferred substantively to a post on lower pay, in which case his lien is transferred to the new post from the date on which he is relieved of his duties in the old post:
(d) while on leave.,
(e) while under suspension.
xxx Rule 20
20.(a) Government [shall] suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is appointed in a substantive capacity-
(1) to a tenure post, or (2) xxxxxxx1 (3) Provisionally to a post on which another Government servant would hold a lien had his lien not been suspended under this Rule.
1 The provisions of Rule 20(a)[2]) is deleted
- 19 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
(b) Government may at its option, suspend the lien of a Government servant on a permanent post which he holds substantively if he is deputed out of the State of Karnataka or transferred to foreign service, or in circumstances not covered by clause (a) of this Rule, is transferred in an officiating capacity to a post in another cadre and if any of these cases there is reason to believe that he will remain absent from the post on which he holds a lien for a period of not less than three years.
(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or (b) of this Rule, a Government servant's lien on a tenure post may in no circumstances be suspended. If he is appointed substantively to another permanent post and his lien on the tenure post must be terminated.
(d) If a Government Servant's lien on a post is suspended under clause (a) or (b) of this Rule, the post may be filled substantively, and the
- 20 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 Government servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it, provided that the arrangements shall be reversed as soon as the suspended lien revives.
Note - When a post is filled substantively under this clause the appointment will be termed as provisional appointment; the Government servant appointed will hold a provisional lien on the post and that lien will be liable to suspension under clause (a) but not under clause (b) of this Rule.
(e) A Government servant's lien which has been suspended under clause
(a) of this Rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (1) or (3) of that clause.
(f) A Government servant's lien which has been suspended under clause
(b), of this Rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to be on deputation outside the State of Karnataka or on foreign service or to hold a post referred to in clause (b) provided
- 21 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 that a suspended lien shall not revive because the Government servant takes leave if there is reason to believe that he will, on return from leave, continue to be on deputation outside the State of Karnataka or on foreign service or to hold a post referred to in clause
(b) and the total period of absence on duty will not fall short of three years or that he will hold substantively a post of the nature specified in sub clause (1) or (3) of clause (a)."
15. The Rule on lien2, as could be seen from Rule 19 of the KCSR, is that a Government servant when absent over a period of time or periods of time retains lien over her/his post subject to the lien being suspended or terminated under different circumstances as enumerated in Sub-Clauses (a) to 2 The expression "lien" is defined under Rule 8(26) of the KCSR thus:
"lien" means the title of a Government servant to hold substantively, either immediately or on the termination of period or periods of absence, a permanent post, including a tenure post, to which he has been appointed substantively.
- 22 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
(e) of Rule 20 of the KCSR. Further, the lien over a post is either suspended by operation of law or may be suspended at the option of the State Government.
When a Government servant holding a permanent post substantively is appointed in a substantive capacity to a tenure post, the lien over the original post stands suspended by operation of law, and this is obvious on reading the provisions of Rule 20(a)(1) of the KSCR. In contrast, when a Government servant is sent on deputation outside State or on foreign service or otherwise as foresaid, the State Government may suspend the lien as is contemplated under Rule 20(b) of the KCSR.
16. The provisions of Rule 20(c) of the KCSR3 stipulate that a Government servant's lien over a tenure post shall not be suspended notwithstanding 3 Rule 20(c) of the KCSR Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or (b) of this rule, a Government servant's lien on a tenure post may in no circumstances be suspended. If he is appointed substantively to another permanent post his lien on the tenure post must be terminated.
- 23 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 the provisions of Rule 20(a) or (b) of the KCSR, but if such Government Servant is appointed substantively to another permanent post, the lien over the tenure post is terminated. This Court must observe that the true import of the provisions of Rule 20(c) of KCSR is to ensure that the lien over a tenure post is saved unless there is further substantive appointment of the concerned to a permanent post. In case the concerned is so appointed, the lien over the tenure post must necessarily cease, and this is provided for in the second part of Rule 20(c) of the KCSR.
17. The provisions of Rule 20(d) of the KCSR4 provide for operation of the lien when a Government Servant is appointed to the post over which another enjoins lien but is suspended under Rule 20(a) of the 4 Rule 20(d) of the KCSR If a Government servant's lien on a post is suspended under clause (a) or (b) of this rule, the post may be filled substantively, and the Government servant appointed to hold it substantively shall acquire a lien on it, provided that the arrangements shall be reversed as soon as the suspended lien revives.
- 24 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 KCSR. The provisions of Rule 20(e) of the KCSR5 categorically stipulate that the lien which is suspended under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 20 of KCSR by operation of law, shall revive as soon as the concerned Government Servant ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in Sub-clause (1) and (3) of Rule 20(a) of the KCSR. It follows from the aforesaid provisions that if a Government Servant is appointed substantively to a tenure post, the lien over such person's original post is suspended by operation of law, and when this person ceases to hold the tenure post, the suspended lien is revived. The ceasing, as is contemplated under Rule 20(e) [the ceasing of the lien over the tenure post], could also be when the concerned person ceases to hold such tenure post because of his retirement. 5 Rule 20(e) of the KCSR A Government servant's lien which has been suspended under clause (a) of this Rule shall revive as soon as he ceases to hold a lien on a post of the nature specified in sub-clause (1) or (3) of that clause.
- 25 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
18. This Court must observe that this inter play between suspension of lien and revival of the same ensures the guarantee of employment and the consequential benefit to the concerned person and that this guarantee is not jeopardized only because of absence for a period either because of being sent on deputation or appointment against a tenure post. The Apex Court in Triveni Shankar Saxena Vs. State of UP and Others6, while considering a similar definition of the expression lien as in KCSR and referring to the different contexts in which lien is used at common law to denote a 'right to retain', has reiterated that a person acquires a lien when he/she is confirmed and made permanent against that particular post. This proposition is once again reiterated in Sitikanatha Mishra Vs. Union of India Others7. A lien thus created is terminated or discharged in terms of the relevant rules. 6 1992 Supp (1) SCC 524 7 (2015) 3 SCC 670
- 26 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017
19. Further, the proposition that a Government servant cannot hold lien over two permanent posts, that is underscored in Dr.S.K. Kacker vs. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others8, should be beyond quarrel, and the provisions of Rules 19 and 20 of the KCSR in detailing suspension and revival of lien have provided for the play of this proposition. Therefore, reliance on the aforesaid decision will not inure to the benefit of the petitioner's benefit.
20. The question in the present proceedings is not whether the petitioner held any lien on the post of a Director with the Autonomous Institution, but is whether he held lien over his original post. The question whether he held any lien on the tenure post of a Director with the Autonomous Institution is entirely extraneous to the present circumstances, and only if that was the question, the provisions of 8 (1996)10 SCC 734
- 27 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 Rule 20(a) and (c) of the KCSR would have been relevant. The petitioner, who has ceased to work as the Director of the Autonomous Institution on attaining the age of superannuation, because of the provisions of Rule 20(a) and 20(e) cannot contend that his lien as against the original post is terminated with his appointment as the Director of the Autonomous Institution.
21. This Court must also opine that, in the light of the provisions of Rule 20(a), the petitioner cannot rely upon the provisions of Rule 252 of the KCSR which are only to protect pay. This Court cannot accept the reliance upon the provisions of Rule 252 of the KCSR firstly because it is not the petitioner's case that he tendered his resignation and participated in the selection process or that he tendered resignation after he was selected as the First Dean-Cum-Director with the Autonomous
- 28 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 Institution. Secondly, the purport of Rule 2529 of the KCSR is to ensure that when a person in public service tenders resignation or is dismissed or removed for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, shall forfeit the past service, but when resignation is tendered to take up another appointment with proper permission, there is continuity of service. This only ensures the benefit of past service.
22. Hence, questions framed are answered against the petitioner, and this Court must opine that both the petitions must be disposed of but with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy under the 9 Rule 252 of the KCSR Resignation of the public service, or dismissal or removal from it for misconduct, insolvency, inefficiency, but not due to age, or failure to pass a prescribed examination entails forfeiture of past service.
[Exception:- The provisions of this Rule regarding forfeiture of past service due to resignation of public service shall not apply to the cases of retirement or death while in service of a Government servant on or after the 19th September 1974.]
(b) Resignation of an appointment to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether permanent or temporary, service in which counts in full or in part, is not a resignation of public service.
- 29 -
NC: 2024:KHC:23378 WP No. 15429 of 2017 C/W WP No. 15428 of 2017 Tribunals Act observing that the merits of the petitioner's grievance otherwise is not examined in these proceedings. This Court must also observe that the petitioner must be entitled for exemption of the time that is spent in prosecuting these petitions if the petitioner avails this liberty within six [6] weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE RB, NV