1. The petitioner is an Assistant General Manager in Andhra Bank. He filed W.P. No. 23410 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first writ petition') seeking to direct the respondents to treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn, and consequently direct the respondents to continue him in service. While the first writ petition is pending before this Court, the petitioner filed W.P. No.16996 of 2007 assailing the proceedings dated 09.07.2004 accepting his application for voluntary retirement and retiring him from service and the consequential order dated 12.07.2004 relieving him from service.

2. The petitioner joined the respondents-Andhra Bank as Rural Credit Officer in MM- II Cadre on 13.05.1977. He was given promotions to the next higher posts from time to time. He worked at various branches/offices of the respondents within Andhra Pradesh and outside. While working as Assistant General Manager, the petitioner states that because of health reasons, he applied for voluntary retirement on 12.04.2004 to the respondents, with a request to accept his application and relieve him from service as per the rules in force, treating the application as three months notice. Subsequently, the petitioner made another application dated 19.04.2004 requesting the respondents to treat his earlier application dated 12.04.2004 for voluntary retirement as withdrawn, but the respondents denied having received the same. The petitioner has also not filed any acknowledgement in token of having submitted the said application. However, the 2nd respondent issued letter dated 21.04.2004 accepting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. The petitioner was informed that he will be relieved from service on 11.07.2004 i.e. after the expiry of the notice period of three months. The petitioner states that he made another application dated 24.06.2004 addressed both to the Chairman and Managing Director and the General Manager requesting them to permit him to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement. However, the respondents by order dated 09.07.2004 declined the said request of the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the apex Court in Balram Gupta v. Union of India1 mainly contended that since the petitioner submitted application requesting the respondents to treat his application for voluntary retirement as withdrawn much before the expiry of the notice period, the respondents should not have rejected the same, and as such, the action of the respondents in rejecting the same is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 16(1) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, he also placed reliance on several judgments, namely P.V.K. Vara Prasad v. Andhra Bank2, Andhra Bank v. Sudha Nagaraj3, Nagesh B. Prabhu v. Syndicate Bank4, J.N. Shrivastava v. Union of India5, Shambu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India6, Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd.7.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents-Andhra Bank submitted that the petitioner has not come to the Court with clean hands. He submitted that the petitioner filed the first writ petition averring as if he was in active service with the respondents. He submitted that the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement having been accepted, was relieved from service, and he was also paid the terminal benefits, and therefore, he is not entitled to seek his continuance in service. He submitted that the petitioner assailed the order of rejection of his request for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement after lapse of three years. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgments, namely Punjab & sind Bank v. S. Ranveer Singh Bawa8, Gyanendra Sahay v. Tata Iron & Steel Co. Ltd.9 and Chand Mal Chayal v. State of