PADMANABHIAH, J. - (1.)This is an application filed by the petitioner under Art. 226 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing the order of respondent-Government bearing No-Fl. 5103-5/S&A. 55-54-2, dated 15-11-1954, as illegal and ultra vires.
(2.)The facts that have given rise to this petition are briefly as follows: The petitioner was an Agricultural Inspector under the respondent-State Government till 8-1-1947 when he was retired on a pension of Es. 56-12-0. The question of payment of this pension was under correspondence for some time and, in the meanwhile, the respondent-Government passed an order directing the withholding of this pension and the insurance amount due to the petitioner on the ground that he was responsible for the loss of Rs. 9,508-8-0 said to have been incurred by the Arsikere Cotton Marketing Co-operative Society, Ltd., of which he (petitioner) was the Secretary for some time. The petitioner contended that he was not responsible for the loss and that the withholding of the pension and the insurance amount was illegal. Subsequently the State Government ordered the payment of the insurance amount, but they did not pass like orders With respect to the pension. After repeated protests and representations, the respondent-Government passed the impugned order on 15-11-1954 reducing his pension from Rs. 56-12-0 to Rs. 5 per month from the date of retirement on the alleged ground that his record of service was unsatisfactory. The petitioner contends that the charge that this record of service was unsatisfactory is not true and that no enquiry was held in this behalf. He further contends that the Government had no power to reduce the pension once sanctioned and that the order is illegal, unjust and ultra vires and liable to be quashed by the issue of an appropriate writ or order. In tbe counter-affidavit filed by the respondent-Government, they do not dispute the main facts alleged in the petition, but they contend that what was sanctioned to the petitioner was an anticipatory pension, that the Government had power to reduce a pension already granted and that the order is legal and valid.
(3.)The only point that arises for consideration is whether the respondent-Government had power to reduce the pension of the petitioner as is done in this case. At the outset, it has to be pointed out that there is no substance in the contention of the respondent-Government that what was sanctioned to the petitioner was an anticipatory pension. The order granting pension to the petitioner does not say so nor is there any document worth the name to indicate that what was sanctioned to the petitioner was an anticipatory pension. Reliance was placed on the side of the respondent on Articles 216, 216 (A) and 302 of tbe Mysore Services Regulations. In our opinion none of these provisions supports the contention of the respondent-Government.
;