JUDGMENT - V.K. BARDE, J.:---This petition is filed by the legal representatives of Shri Mirza Mahmood s/o. Hidayat Baig who died on 3-1-1988. Shri Mirza Mahmood s/o. Hidayat Baig was working as primary teacher in the erstwhile Hyderabad State. After the re-organisation of the States, Shri Mirza Mahmood Hidayat Baig was allocated to the State of Maharashtra as per the States Reorganization Act, 1956 and thereafter his services were transferred to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. He continued in the service of the respondent No. 2 Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, as primary teacher. 2. The notice dated 13-11-1965 was served on Shri Mirza Mahmood Hidayat Baig (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as "the teacher" in this judgment) calling upon him to explain as to why he should not be compulsorily retired from service as per Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954 (for short, the Rules of 1954). By the said notice, the teacher was also informed that he would be kept under suspension or he would be permitted to proceed on leave as may be admissible to him with effect from 1st December, 1965. The annexure to the notice contains the allegations made against the teacher that he had associated with the activities of Jamate-A-Islami organization, that he had attended the quarterly conference of said organization held at Naigavan on 9th and 10th May, and that he had further attended the meeting of said organization held at the residence of Shri Hussain Khan Hasmat Khan at Naigavan (Aurangabad) in 1964. According to the authorities, the activities of the teacher were posing a threat to the national security. 3. The teacher replied the aforesaid notice and denied that he had attended the said meetings of Jamate-A-Islami organization. He had also denied that he had any connection with the said organization. 4. It appears that since the teacher was directed to proceed on leave or to face the consequence of suspension from service, the teacher had proceeded on leave. The teacher continued to be on leave. However, the nature of his leave was not determined. The record indicates that the teacher had made many representations in this respect to the concerned authorities but the matter was not decided either with respect to the allegations made against him or with respect to the leave applications. The teacher also approached the Lok Ayukta. However, the nature of his leave was not determined. The record indicates that the teacher had made many representations in this respect to the concerned authorities but the matter was not decided either with respect to the allegations made against him or with respect to the leave applications. The teacher also approached the Lok Ayukta. The Honourable Lok Ayukta decided the matter and had given certain directions to the respondents. However, the main grievance with respect to the allegations made against the teacher and the proposed action of compulsory retirement of the teacher from service, was not solved. It appears that no further inquiry was held in this respect. 5. For the first time an order was passed on 30-11-1987. By the said order, the period from 2-1-1965 to 23-6-1965 was being treated as half-pay leave and ex post facto sanction was given to the leave application of the teacher. The teacher was retired compulsorily from service with effect from 14-6-1965. 6. The petitioners have come against the order dated 30-11-1987. It is contended that in the ordinary course, the teacher would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 20-8-1982. Therefore, the order dated 30-11-1987 retiring the teacher from 14-6-1965 is illegal and same be quashed. The petitioners further prayed that the respondents be directed to pay full salary and allowances from 2-1-1965 till 15-2-1982 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and also to pay arrears of pension with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 7. The Deputy Education Officer, Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, has filed affidavit in reply. It is the contention of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, that the disciplinary authority was very much satisfied to take suitable action against the teacher for his anti-national activities. It is also contended that it was established that the teacher had associated with Jaamate-A-Islami organization, which was banned at the relevant time. It is further contended that by the letter dated 1-2-1980 the Education Officer had called upon the teacher to consider his retirement and the teacher in his defence had produced certain documents on the record. Those documents were considered by the competent authority. It was noticed that the teacher had not submitted leave applications in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time. Those documents were considered by the competent authority. It was noticed that the teacher had not submitted leave applications in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time. The Zilla Parishad is also relying on the order dated 30-11-1987 by which the leave was sanctioned to the teacher as mentioned above. It is also contended that the legal heirs of the teacher are getting family pension as per rules. It is further contended that the legal heirs of the teacher have no locus standi to file the present petition. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. 7A. The respondent No. 4 has also filed affidavit in reply. However, no new facts are brought on the record through the affidavit in reply of the respondent No. 4 to indicate that any inquiry was held against the teacher in consequence of the notice dated 13-11-1965 and on the basis of such an inquiry, action as per the order dated 30-11-1987 was taken. It is only contended that the Under Secretary to the Government, wrote the letter dated 24-8-1987 and informed that the teacher should retire from service with effect from 14-6-1965. However, as the respondent No. 1 has not filed any affidavit it is not known as to under what circumstances the Under Secretary had taken the aforesaid decision and communicated the same to the Director of Education. 8. Shri B.R. Kedar Pawar, learned Advocate holding for Shri S.B. Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, has argued that after the allocation of the teacher to the Zilla Parishad, he was not governed by the Hyderabad Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954 and therefore, action taken under the said Rules was unwarranted. He further argued that assuming that the said rules were applicable to the teacher, it was necessary to hold an inquiry into the allegations levelled against the teacher when the teacher had denied the allegations made against him in the annexure to the notice dated 13-11-1965. He argued that the teacher ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard when serious allegations were made against him. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that it is not made clear in the affidavit as to why no inquiry was held before passing the order dated 30-11-1987. He argued that the teacher ought to have been given an opportunity of being heard when serious allegations were made against him. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that it is not made clear in the affidavit as to why no inquiry was held before passing the order dated 30-11-1987. He also argued that the matter was also allowed to be drifted till 30-11-1987 by the authorities without any reason. However, the order of compulsory retirement passed on 30-11-1987 was given retrospective effect and such an order cannot be passed under any of the service rules applicable to the teacher. He argued that if at all Rules of 1954 are applicable to the teacher, the said order of compulsory retirement ought to have been passed by Rajpramukh or Governor of the State or any officer or authority empowered by him in that behalf. However, the order is not passed by the Rajpramukh or the Governor. 9. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad and the learned Assistant Government Pleader argued that the teacher himself did not file any writ petition against the order of compulsory retirement and therefore, the legal heirs of the teacher have no locus standi to file such a petition. The leaned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, have argued that since the teacher had given an option with respect to the leave rules and Revised Pension Rules, the Rules of 1954 are applicable to the teacher. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has argued that the notice was served on the teacher as per Rule 3 of the Hyderabad Civil Services (Safeguarding of National Security) Rules, 1954 and as provided under that rule, the Government Servant can be made to retire from the Government Service in case it is found on reasonable suspicion that he was indulging in anti-national activities. It was, therefore, not necessary to hold an inquiry because Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules specifically provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules shall apply to or in respect of any matter taken or proposed to be taken under these Rules". It was, therefore, not necessary to hold an inquiry because Rule 6 of the aforesaid rules specifically provides that "Notwithstanding anything contained in the Hyderabad Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules shall apply to or in respect of any matter taken or proposed to be taken under these Rules". The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad has argued that the disciplinary authority was very much satisfied about the misconduct committed by the teacher as per the allegations made in the notice and therefore, no further action was taken. 10. In this petition, Rule was issued on 14-3-1988, After a lapse of 12 years, the objection as to the locus standi of the petitioners to file this petition is raised by the learned Advocates for the respondents. If the circumstances in this case are taken into consideration that the teacher was making representations time and again to the authorities and till 30-11-1987 no action was taken with respect to the notice dated 13-11-1965 and that within a short period after passing of the order dated 30-11-1987 the teacher expired. We do not think that the writ petition can be dismissed only on the technical ground of locus standi. 11. Now coming to the applicability of the Rules of 1954 under which the notice dated 13-11-1965 was issued to the teacher, there is nothing on record to indicate that the said rules continued to be applicable to the teacher even after allocation of his services to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad. Mrs. S.B. Gosavi, learned Assistant Government Pleader, has brought to our notice that when the services of the teacher were transferred to the State of Maharashtra and thereafter to the Zilla Parishad, the teacher had given an option with respect to the Leave and Revised Pension Rules and therefore, the teacher was covered by the Rules of 1954. We are not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the learned Assistant Government Pleader that by virtue of specific option with respect to the Leave and Revised Pension Rules, the Rules of 1954 automatically were made applicable to the teacher. The specific option as to the application of the Leave and Revised Pension Rules to the teacher even after allocation of his services to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, has nothing to do with the Rules of 1954. The specific option as to the application of the Leave and Revised Pension Rules to the teacher even after allocation of his services to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, has nothing to do with the Rules of 1954. It was necessary on the part of the respondents to show that even after allocation of services of the teacher to the State of Maharashtra and thereafter to the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, the Rules of 1954 continued to be in force and applicable to the teacher and therefore, he was governed by the said rules. There is, therefore, substance in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners that the initiation of the inquiry and issuance of the notice dated 13-11-1965 under the Rules of 1954 in respect of the alleged misconduct on the part of the teacher is illegal. 12. Furthermore, even if the rules are held to be applicable to the teacher and the notice dated 13-11-1965 is said to be legal, the order of compulsory retirement as is required by the Rules, is not signed by the authority specifically empowered by the Rajpramukh/Governor in that behalf. Therefore, the impugned order of compulsory retirement of the teacher from the service of the Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad, from 14-11-1965 is not legal and valid in the eye of law. 13. When serious allegations were made against the teacher and especially when those allegations were denied by the teacher, mere service of the notice and calling for the explanation of the teacher was not sufficient. The departmental inquiry ought to have been initiated against the teacher and an opportunity of being heard ought to have been given to the teacher. No such inquiry was held. No opportunity was given to the teacher to defend himself. It is nowhere made clear as to why no inquiry was held before passing such a penal order. There is nothing on the record to show that the allegations were duly proved. The matter remained only in the realm of allegations and never entered into realm of proof. Obviously, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement of the teacher was passed without holding departmental inquiry and without observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, great prejudice was caused to the teacher by such action on the part of the respondents. 14. The matter remained only in the realm of allegations and never entered into realm of proof. Obviously, therefore, the order of compulsory retirement of the teacher was passed without holding departmental inquiry and without observing the principles of natural justice. Therefore, great prejudice was caused to the teacher by such action on the part of the respondents. 14. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad Aurangabad, has invited our attention to the statement made in para 6 of the affidavit in reply that the disciplinary authority was very much satisfied about the misconduct committed by the teacher as per the allegations made in the notice dated 13-11-1965 and therefore, no further action was taken. Except the bare statement in para 6 of the affidavit in reply, it is not shown as to who was the disciplinary authority whether it was the Chief Executive Officer or whether the Deputy Director of Education or Director of Education who reached to the satisfaction as stated in the statement. If the respondents wanted to apply the Rules of 1954 to the inquiry initiated against the teacher, then it is the subjective satisfaction of the Rajpramukh/Governor of the State which is necessary. Here it is nowhere made clear that the subjective satisfaction was that of Rajpramukh/Governor. 15. It is also not shown as to what was the material and evidence and the circumstances on the basis of which the disciplinary authority reached to the satisfaction that the allegations are proved and it was not necessary to hold any inquiry or to give an opportunity of being heard to the teacher. There must be reasonable grounds and sufficient material to reach to the subjective satisfaction by the authority. Mere statement is not at all sufficient for subjective satisfaction. The very statement made in para 6 about the satisfaction of the disciplinary authority is, therefore, without any basis and it cannot be accepted. It appears that the said statement is made just by way of face-saving attempt. 16. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, have argued that since 1965, the teacher was not in service, he had not filed applications for leave in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period. In such circumstances, no further action could be taken against him for holding departmental inquiry. The learned Advocate for the Zilla Parishad as well as the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State, have argued that since 1965, the teacher was not in service, he had not filed applications for leave in the prescribed form and within the prescribed period. In such circumstances, no further action could be taken against him for holding departmental inquiry. Here also we do not find any substance in this contention. The teacher was repeatedly making representations to the authorities. The notice was issued to the teacher in such a way that he was required to proceed on leave. Whatever applications were made by the teacher were in pursuance of the impugned notice and therefore, it was the duty of the authorities to sanction his leave or reject the said applications and to keep him under suspension. The teacher was not placed under suspension. That means, the applications in whatever forms submitted by the teacher were accepted by the authorities and impliedly he was allowed to continue on leave. It appears that although the teacher had made applications and repeated representations to consider his leave applications till 24-8-1987 no action was taken by the concerned authorities on those leave applications and representations of the teacher. It cannot, therefore, be said that the teacher had remained absent from duty voluntarily. If the inquiry had been held within a reasonable time after service of the notice dated 13-11-1965 and the explanation furnished by the teacher, then the matter would have come to a logical end either holding the teacher guilty or not guilty of the misconduct and then his absence could have been regularized by passing appropriate order in that behalf. No such action was taken by the concerned authority not for one or two years but almost for 22 years i.e. from 1965 to 1987. Obviously, we do not find any fault with the teacher either in remaining absent from service or non-filing of the applications for leave in the prescribed form. 17. If all the aforesaid circumstances are taken into consideration, it is clear that the communication sent to the teacher vide order dated 30-11-1987 indicating that he stood compulsorily retired from 14-6-1965 is unjustifiable and illegal. The teacher could not have been compulsorily retired from service under the Rules of 1954 or without holding an inquiry and without giving an opportunity of being heard to him. 18. The teacher could not have been compulsorily retired from service under the Rules of 1954 or without holding an inquiry and without giving an opportunity of being heard to him. 18. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has produced on the record certain documents. From the document at page 98 it appears that the date of birth of the teacher was 21-8-1924. So the teacher would have retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 20-8-1982. The teacher was, therefore, entitled to continue in service till 20-8-1982. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 30-11-1987 compulsorily retiring the teacher Mirza Mahmood s/o. Hidayat Baig with effect from 14-6-1965 is quashed. We hold that the teacher Mirza Mahmood s/o. Hidayat Baig was deemed to have continued in service from 14-6-1965 till 20-8-1982 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 20-8-1982. We direct the respondents (i) to pay full pay and allowances for the period from 14-6-1965 to 20-8-1982 including arrears on account of revision of pay-scales during the aforesaid period, after adjusting the amounts already paid to the teacher, to the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order and (ii) to recalculate the pension and pensionary benefits on the basis of retirement of the teacher on 20-8-1982 and payment of salary for the period from 14-6-1965 to 20-8-1982 and to pay the arrears thereof to the petitioners. (A) Considering the circumstances that the teacher was making repeated requests to the authorities to consider his case and to allow him to join the service and that the respondents took almost 22 years to pass the order of compulsory retirement, we direct the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amount of pay and allowances for the period from 14-6-1965 to 20-8-1982 from the date of the petition till the date of actual payment. (B) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs. Writ petition allowed. -----