( 1 ) THIS is the third time the petitioner is approaching this Court under article 226 of the Constitution. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad. He had to face departmental enquiry on some misconduct. Pending the enquiry, he was placed under suspension by order dt. 30-7-1964. The enquiry was terminated with an order of compulsory retirement made on 5-6-1967. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred WP. 1663 of 1967 in this Court. On 6-1-1971, that writ petition was allowed, quashing the order of compulsory retirement with liberty to the authority to continue the proceedings in accordance with law. Pursuant to the said order, there was further consideration of the case of the petitioner in which he was again found guilty of the charge and by order dt. 28-4-1973 he was compulsorily retired from service. Interrupting the narration, I may state one other fact. After WP. 1663 of 1967 was allowed, he made representation to the Govt that he should be reinstated in service, to which he was informed by order dt. 5-11-1971 that he should be deemed to be under suspension and he has no right of reinstatement. Challenging the validity of the said endorsement, the petitioner approached this Court with WP. 3044 of 1971. When that writ petition came up for final disposal on 23-1-1974, the Govt Advocate informed the Court that the petitioner was again compulsorily retired, and the only question that then survived for consideration was as to what salary or emoluments should be paid to the petitioner for the period of suspension. While accepting the said statement, this Court dismissed the writ petition by observing thus :" In the circumstances, I consider it just and proper to dismiss this petition without expressing any opinion on the question as to what salary must be paid to the petitioner in respect of the period of suspension. The Govt is, however, directed to determine the said question in the light of any representation which the petitioner may make. After the Govt determines the said question, the petitioner may approach this Court if he feels aggrieved by the decision of the Govt. All contentions are left open. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner did not challenge the validity of the second order of compulsory retirement made on 28-4-1973. After the Govt determines the said question, the petitioner may approach this Court if he feels aggrieved by the decision of the Govt. All contentions are left open. The petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. " ( 3 ) THE petitioner did not challenge the validity of the second order of compulsory retirement made on 28-4-1973. He, however, made representation to the Govt after the disposal of the WP. 3044 of 1971 requesting the Govt to pass appropriate order regarding his emoluments to which he was entitled to for the period anterior to 28-4-1973. The Govt after considering his representation, made an order dt. 25-7-1974, the concluding portion of which reads :"order after considering the circumstances of the case, Govt are pleased to extend the period cf suspension upto 27-4-1973 in respect of Sriyuthus: venkobachar Joshi,, Ex Dy Tahsildar and Mohd. Muniruddin, ex II Division Clerk. This order issues with the concurrence of the Finance Dept vide their U. O. Note No. FO-2230/sii/74 dt. 15-7-1974. By Order and in the name of the Governor of Karnataka, sd/ N. B. Sakharande, under Secy to Govt, Rev Dept. " ( 4 ) CALLING into question the validity of the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred. ( 5 ) IT was urged for the petitioner that he was an allottee from the erstwhile State of Hyderabad and the rules relating to disciplinary proceedings then existing in that State did not provide for retrospective suspension or deemed suspension, and his conditions of service should not be varied to his disadvantage without prior approval of the Central Govt under proviso to S. 115 (7) of the States Reorganisation Act. It was also urged that Rule 10 (4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, ccntrol and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (shortly called as "the CCA Rules") providing for deemed suspension, had no such previous approval of the central Government. ( 6 ) IN the Statement of Objections filed on behalf of the Govt, it is stated that Rule 10 (4) of the CCA Rules is valid as it concerns with matters of discipline and control of a Govt servant which has been covered by the general approval of the Central Govt provided in the Memorandum dated 11th May 1957 addressed by the Central Govt to all the State Govts. It is also stated that the impugned order was really unnecessary since Under rule 10 (4) of the CCA Rules, the suspension of the petitioner was deemed to have been continued when this Court allowed WP. 1663 of 1967 setting aside the first order of compulsory retirement. ( 7 ) FROM these rival contentions, the question raised turns on the validity cf Rule 10 (4) of the CCA Rules. The rule provides :" 10. Suspension.- (1) The Appointing Authority or any authority to which it is subodinate or any other authority empowered by the Govt in this behalf may place a Govt servant under suspension- (a) Where a disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or (b) where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial: provided that, where the order of suspension is made by an authority lower than the Appointing Authority, such authority, shall forthwith report to the Appointing Authority the circumstances in which the order was made. * * * * * * (4) Where a penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement from service imposed upon a Govt servant is set aside or declared or rendered void in consequence of or by a decision of a Court of law, and the Disciplinary Authority, on a consideration of the circumstances of the case, decides to hold further inquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement was originally imposed, the Govt servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority from the date of the original order of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement and shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders. "from the above provisions, it is seen that where a penalty of compulsory retirement is set aside or declared or rendered void by the decision of any Court of law, the Govt servant shall be demeed to have been placed under suspension by the Appointing Authority and he shall continue to remain under suspension until further orders if the desciplinary authority decides to hold further enquiry against him on the allegations on which the penalty of compulsory retirement was originally imposed. In the instant case the competent authority wanted to hold a further enquiry against the petitioner on the allegations which formed the basis of the first order of compulsory retirement which was set aside by this Court. Therefore, by operation of Rule 10 (4) of the CCA Rules, the suspension order made on 30-7-1964 shall be deemed to have continued and remained in force till the second order of compulsory retirement was made on 28-4-1973. If rule 10 (4) is valid, then the impugned order is really superfluous. ( 8 ) THE rule is said to be invalid for want of specific previous approval of the Central Govt within the proviso to S. 115 (7) of the S. R. Act. The rule provides for suspension of a Govt servant pending enquiry against him. The suspension contemplated is not as a "measure of punishment. It is concerned with discipline or control of the Govt servants. These matters have been undoubtedly covered by the Memorandum dt. 11th May, 1957 issued by the Central Govt to the State Govts. The Memorandum states :" The question whether any protection shoud be given in respect of rules and conditions applicable to Govt servants attected by reorganisation immediately before the date of reorganisation in the matter of travelling allowance, discipline control, classification, appeal, conduct, probation and departmental promotion was also considered. The govt of India agree with the view expresed on behalf of the State representatives that it would not be appropriate to provide for any protection in the matter of these conditions. "it is evident therefrom, that the Central Govt, had told the State govts that they might, if they so desire, change the service rules relating to the matters covered in the Memorandum. The scope of the above Memorandum came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in N. Raghavendra rao v. Dy Commr, S. K. , AIR. 1965 SC. 137, and Mohamad Shujat Ali v. Union of india, AIR. 1974 SC. 1631. In both the cases it was held that the expression "previous approval" within the proviso to S. 115 (7) would include a general approval to the variation in the conditions of service within certain limits indicated by the Central Govt. Rule 10 (4) of the CCA Rules is therefore not open to attack since it has a general approval of the Cental Govt as stated in the said Memorandum. Rule 10 (4) of the CCA Rules is therefore not open to attack since it has a general approval of the Cental Govt as stated in the said Memorandum. ( 9 ) IN the view that I take, it is sufficient if I observe that the petitioner is entitled to only subsistence allowance under Rule 98 of the kcs. Rules for the entire period of suspension and no other relief he could claim in this petition. ( 10 ) IN the result, the rule is discharged, but without costs. --- *** --- .