( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged in this Writ Petition the order of the state Government dated 15-9-1972 Ext. A retiring the petitioner from service under Not" 1 to Rule 285 of the Mysore Civil Services Rules. The impugned order describes the petitioner as one holding the post of II grade Revenue Inspector Ranebennur Taluk Dharwar District. ( 2 ) SHRI R. C. Goulay learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as the conditions' prescribed under Note 1 to Rule 285 do not exist in this case the State Government could not have exercised the power to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service under the said provision-Rule 285 provides that a retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for thirty years or such legs- time as may for any special class of Government servants be prescribed Note 1 to the said Rule which is relevant for the purpose of this case may be extracted as. follows:-" A Government servant may. retire from service any time after completing 30 years' qualifying seivice provided"that he shall give in this behalf a notice in writing to the appropriate authority at least three months before the date on which he wishes to retire. Government may by order retire any Government servant after he has completed twenty-five years of qualifying service or after he. has attained fifty years of age if such retirement is in their opinion necessary in the public interest provided that the Government servant concerned is given notice of three months before the date of retirement or lieu of'such notice a sum equivalent to the amount o| his salary for and period of three months but the pension shall not be payable for the period in respect of which he receives salary in lieu of notice. . . . . . . . . "0ne of the two conditions have to be satisfied before the Government exercises its power under Note 1 to Rule 285 and they are (1) that the government servant must have completed twenty-five years of qualifying service or (2) he must have attained 56 years of age. If one of these two-conditions. . . . . . . . . "0ne of the two conditions have to be satisfied before the Government exercises its power under Note 1 to Rule 285 and they are (1) that the government servant must have completed twenty-five years of qualifying service or (2) he must have attained 56 years of age. If one of these two-conditions. is satisfied and the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest to retire the Government servant from service it can do so by' giving the notice of the requiste period or tendering a sum equivalent to the amount of salary for the period of notice ( 3 ) NO statement of objections have been filed on behalf of the respondents state Government and the Deputy Commissioner Dharwar. The petitioner has stated that his date of birth as entered in the Services registrar is 17-5-1924. As that statement is not controvered it is clear thai the petitioner had not completed 50 years of age on the date on which the impugned order was made. The question that arises for consideration therefore is as to whether the other condition regarding qualifying service is satisfied in this case. The Rule requires that the Government servant should have completed 25 years of qualifying service before action could be taken under Note 1 to Rule 285. The petitioner has in paragraph 5 of the affidavit given some details of his service as follows:-"therefore according to the rules relating to the qualifying service the total period of qualifying service in my case would come to 19 years 3 months and 19 days as under y. M. Days. 57-44 ---31- 3-50 5-6-- 26 1-7-50 --- -. 3- 8-51 1-1- 3 1-5-58 - 21-12-70 12-7-20 19--3--19 the period from 1-4-50 to 30- 6-50 0-3- 0 4-8-51 30- 4-58 6---9--26 these spells are treated as leave without pay. The first period is treated as leave without pay by the order of the Assistant Commissioner savanur in the year 1950 and the second spell is treated as leave without pay by the order of the Government in the Revenue Department. Under Rule 226 note 4- Rjw rule 283- service spent on leave without allowance and periods of suspensions "would not count for qualifying Service. Under Rule 226 note 4- Rjw rule 283- service spent on leave without allowance and periods of suspensions "would not count for qualifying Service. "in paragraph 4 of the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition the petitioner has stated that he joined service as Talati on 5-7-1944 and that he-come to be promoted in 1967 as Revenue Inspector. He has stated that he continued to worke in that capacity until 21-12-1970 on which date he came to be suspended and that the matter relating to disciplinary proceedings is pending before the Government. He has stated that from the date of suspension he came to be paid suspension allowance at the rate 3/4th> of the pay from 21-12-1970 to 30-11-1971 and that he has not been paid any amount 'for the peripd subsequent to 30-11-1971. It is on this basis that the petitioner has not in para 5 of his affidavit included the period from 21-12-1970 upto the date of the impugned order i. e. 15-9-1972 the said period is less than two years. Even if that period is added to the perioud. stated in paragraph 5 of the affidavit the total period of qualifying service woud still be less than 25 years. It is clear from paragraph 5 of fhe affwwrii that the petitioner has excluded two periods i. e (1) from 1-2-1950 to 30-6-1950 and (2) 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 on the ground that those ware the periods during which the petitioner was under suspension pending certain disciplinary proceedings. After the conclusion of the enquiries in these two cases the petitioner was found guilty of certain charges. If the petitioner is right in excluding the period from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 from the total qualifying service he would be right in his contention that the petitioner had not put in 25 years of qualifying service as on the date on which the impugned order came to be made. ( 4 ) THE principal question that arises for consideration therefore is whether the period from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 can be regarded as qualifying service under the Mysore Civil Services Rules. That is the period during which the petitioner was under suspension in respect of certain disciplinary proceedings as stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. ( 4 ) THE principal question that arises for consideration therefore is whether the period from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 can be regarded as qualifying service under the Mysore Civil Services Rules. That is the period during which the petitioner was under suspension in respect of certain disciplinary proceedings as stated in paragraph 4 of the affidavit. He has further stated that no suspension allowance has been paid in that behalf and lhat he has not at all been paid anything for the said period. He has further stated that he was taken back only on 1st May 1958 as Talati. In paragraph 5 the petitioner has stated that the period from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 was treated as leave without any pay by the Government. The disciplinary proceeding which resulted in the petitioner being kept under suspension from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 it is not disputed culminated in an order imposing certain punishment. ( 5 ) SECTION I of Chapter XVI of the Mysore Civil Services Rules pertaining to conditions of qualifying service has the heading "definitions of qualifying Service'. Rules 220 to 222 come under that Section. Rule 220 provides that a Governments-servant's service does not qualify till he has completed 18 years of age. Rule 221 provides that in cases other than those referred to in Rule 220 unless it be otherwise provided by special rule or contract the service of every Government servant begins when he takes charge of the office to which he is first appointed. Rule 222 is the rule which defines 'qualifying service' and it reads as follows:" The service of a Government servant does not qualify for pension unless it conforms to the following three conditions: - first :-The Service must be under Government. Second :-The employment must be substantive and permanent. Third :-The service must be paid for by Government. These three conditions are fully explained in the following sections. Note : Service of Government servants deputed to work under the tungabhadra Board is deemed to be service qualifying for pension under this rule. " ( 6 ) THE clear effect of Rule 222 is that qualifying service is that service which qualifies a Government servant for pension. The service that qualifies for pension is one that satisfies the conditions specified in rule 222. " ( 6 ) THE clear effect of Rule 222 is that qualifying service is that service which qualifies a Government servant for pension. The service that qualifies for pension is one that satisfies the conditions specified in rule 222. ( 7 ) THE contention of Sri R. U. Goulay learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the period from 4-3-1951 to 30-4-1958 cannot be regarded as a qualifying service; as defined under Rule 222 of MCSRs. It is a period during which the petitioner was under suspension pending certain disciplinary enquiry which culminated in certain punishment being imposed on the petitioner. Rule 99 of the MCSRs. regulates how such period should be treated. Rule 99 reads as follows :" 99 (1) When a Government servant who has been dismissed removed compulsorily retired qr suspended is reiinstated or would have been reinstated but for his retirement on superannuation while under suspension the authority competent to order the reinstatement shall consider and make a specific order.- (a) regarding the pay and allowances to be paid to the Government servant for the period of his absence from duty or for the period of suspension ending with the date of his retirement on superannuation as the case may be: and (b) whether or not the said period shall be treated as period spent on duty. (2) Where such competent authority holds that the Government servant has oeen fully exonerated the Government servant shall be given the full pay to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed or removed from service. (3) In other cases the Government servant shall be given such proportion of such pay and allowances as the competent authority may prescribe : provided that the payment of allowances under clause (2) or Clause (3) shall be subject to a]l other conditions under which such allowances are admissible : provided furher that such proportion of such pay and allowances shall not be less thsn the subsistence and other allotwances admissible under Rule 98. (4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be ireatrd as pericd spent on duty for all purposes. (4) In a case falling under clause (2) the period of absence from duty shall be ireatrd as pericd spent on duty for all purposes. (5) In a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period s )spent on duty unless the competent authority specifcally directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose : provided that if I he Government servant so desires the authority may direct that the period cf absence from duty shall be converted into leave of any kind due and admissible to the Government servant. Note: The order of the competent authority regarding the treatment of the period cf absence from duty passed under this proviso is absolute and no higher sanction would be necessary for the grant of extraordinary leave in excess of three months in so far as temporary Government servants are concerned. (6) No extra cost may ordinarily be imposed on the State by the grant of an allowance under this Rule without the permission of government. This powver has been delegated to Heads of Departments in cases where the period during which the Government servant has remained unemployed through removal or dismissal dees not exceed six months. " ( 8 ) CLAUSE (1) has no application to this case as Sri Doddakalegowda learned High Court Government Pleader is not in a position to say that there is any order by the competent authority to treat the period in question as one spent on duty. Clauses (2) and (4) have no application because the petitioner was not exonerated. Hence the case of the petitioner is governed by Clause (3) of Rule 99. Clause (5) provides that in a case falling under clause (3) the period of absence from duty shall not be treated as a period spent on duty unless the competent authority specifically directs that it shall be so treated for any specified purpose. But in this case there is no such order directing that the period of absence from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 shall be treated as the period spent on duty. Therefore it cannot be treated as the period spent on duty. As already noticed the said period was treated as leave without pay by the order of the State government. Rule 244 of the MCRs. Therefore it cannot be treated as the period spent on duty. As already noticed the said period was treated as leave without pay by the order of the State government. Rule 244 of the MCRs. provides that the time passed on all kinds of leave with allowances counts as service. Therefore the period spent on leave without allowances does not count as service it therefore follows that the period from 4-8-1951 to 30-4-1958 does not count as service and consequently the said period cannot be treated as qualifying service under Rule 222 of the MCSRs. If that period is excluded the qualifying service of the petitioner would fall short of 25 years which is the period required for invoking the provisions of Note 1 to Rule 285 of the MCSRs. ( 9 ) SRI S. G. Doddakalegowda sought to rely on Rule 244a of mcsrs. which provides that :" In respect of retirement or death while in service of Government Servants on or after 1st September 1968 time passed on all kinds of leave shall count as service under all circumstances provided that the maximum period of leave without allowances to be so counted shall be restricted to 3 years in the entire service. "even if the maximum period of 3 years is added under Rule 244a the qualifying service will still fall short of 25 years. Besides Rule 244a comes into operation only after the retirement or death of a Government servant. That rule can have no application when considering as to whether the Government servant should be compulsorily retired from service applying Note 1 to Rule 285 of the MCSRs. I have therefore to hold that the condition precedent for invoking the provisions of Note 1 to Rule 285 of the mcsrs. does not exist in this case. Consequently the state Government had no jurisdiction to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service applying Note 1 to Rule 285 of the MCSRs. Hence the impugned order of the State Government dt. 15-9-1972 (Ex. 'a') is liable to be quashed. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the State Government dt. 15-9-1972 (Ex. 'a') is hereby quashed. The petitioner is entitled to ail consequential benefits including monetary benefits in accordance with law. No costs. --- *** --- .