By Nitesh Sahu , Court Cases & Legal News.
Add Nitesh Sahu on Google
judgement
Subject : Administrative Law - Civil Service
In this case, an Executive Officer Grade I, referred to as the respondent, had applied for voluntary retirement from service. However, the Appointing Authority, the second appellant, rejected the respondent's request due to ongoing disciplinary proceedings against him for alleged misappropriation of temple funds.
The respondent argued that his application for voluntary retirement was submitted on August 3, 2020, and under the Fundamental Rules (FR), the Appointing Authority was required to either accept or reject the request within three months. Since the Appointing Authority's decision was communicated to the respondent on November 12, 2020, which was beyond the three-month period, the respondent claimed that he should be deemed to have been voluntarily retired from service.
The Appointing Authority, on the other hand, contended that the respondent's application was received on August 13, 2020, and the decision to reject the request was made on November 5, 2020, which was within the three-month period as per FR 56(3).
The court examined the relevant provisions of FR 56(3), which stipulate that the three-month notice period for voluntary retirement should be reckoned from the date the Appointing Authority receives the request. The court found that the respondent's application was received by the Appointing Authority on August 13, 2020, and the decision to reject the request was made on November 5, 2020, which was within the three-month period.
The court also noted that the respondent himself had acknowledged the Appointing Authority's order dated November 5, 2020, in a subsequent letter, indicating that he had acquiesced to the decision.
The court set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, who had earlier allowed the respondent's writ petition and deemed him to have been voluntarily retired from service. The court directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the proceedings against the respondent within six months, and the respondent was ordered to cooperate with the inquiry.
#VoluntaryRetirement #DisciplinaryProceedings #FundamentalRules #MadrasHighCourt
Kerala High Court Salutes R. Rajesh's Supreme Sacrifice, Urges Vigilance in Kochi Flood Prevention
08 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Backs Balanced Calcutta High Court Order on TMC Frozen Accounts in ED Probe
12 Aug 2026
Subsisting Contract Cannot Create Continuing Cause of Action for Time-Barred Debt: Supreme Court
13 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Records Centre's Assurance That Pre-2026 Transgender Identity Cards Stay Valid
17 Aug 2026
Allahabad High Court Grants Bail to Javed Akhtar in GST ITC Fraud Case, Citing Undue Delay
19 Aug 2026
SC Collegium Recommends Appointing Advocate, Judicial Officer to Gauhati High Court
19 Aug 2026
Supreme Court Rules Caste Abuse Inside Closed Room Not Public View Under SC/ST Act
21 Aug 2026
Bombay High Court Pulls Up BMC for Defying Assurance on Bandra Football Ground
21 Aug 2026
RPNLUP Denies Recruitment Irregularities, Files Police Complaint Amid State Law Department Inquiry
21 Aug 2026
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.