- (1.)The petitioner was a lecturer in the Government Ayurvedlc College, Hyderabad . He was due to retire on 28-9-1966. But by G. O. Ms. No. 2168 dt, 17-9-1966 he was not permitted to retire as certain charges were pending against him. He was deemed to continue in service. He was, however, placed Under suspension. On 19-11-68 by G.O. Ms.No. 2193 the Government dismissed him from service. He filed W. P. No. 2980/69 questioning the order of dismissal. By their judgment dt; 18-9-70 Sharfuddin Ahmed and Vaidya JJ. allowed the Writ petition and quashed the order of dismissal. IE was observed by the learned Judges that their judgment would not preclude the Government from proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law from the stage of the show cause notice if they chose to do so. On 15-1 1-1971 the Government issued G.O. Ms.No. 1800 directing as follows;
"The Government now direct in supersession of the orders issued in G.O. Ms, No. 2193 Health dt. 19-11-68 that Dr. M. Koteswara Rao should be deemed to have been under suspension, until further orders. During the period of suspension, he should be paid the same rates of susbsistence allowance he was drawing before."

(2.)The Director of Indian Medicines and Homeopathy should take further action by issuing show cause notice etc., keeping in view the judgment of the High Court. Action may be taken most expeditiously as the Individual is being kept under suspension beyond the date of retirement," 2. On 24-10 -1972 a notice was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why tha punishment of dismissal should not be imposed upon him. The petitioner has filed the present application for the issue of a writ to quash the memorandum dt. 13-10-72 and the GO. dt 15-11-1971.
(3.)Sri M. Jagannadha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of the Government dt, 17-9-1966 continuing the petitioner in service and placing him under suspension was effective only until the order of dismisisal was passed on 19-11-68. The judgment of High Court quashing the order of dismissal did not have the effect of reviving the order dated 17-9-66. The petitioner must therefore be considered to have retired. He could not be proceeded against in a disciplinary enquiry after retirement.