( 1 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal dated 11. 2. 1985. The facts culminating in filing the writ petition can be stated very briefly in the following terms. The petitioner had studied B. Com. (Hons.) On 28. 1. 1963 he was appointed as Supdt. (Accounts) by the first respondent M/s. National Building Construction Company Ltd. In April, 1964 he was promoted as Assistant Accounts Officer. In November, 1965, he was promoted as Cost Accounts Officer. In December, 1967, he was promoted as Senior Accounts Officer. In or about October, 1969 he was appointed as Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts Officer of the Corporation. That is the second in heirarchy of the. first respondent after Chairman-cum-MD in the Organisation. On 28. 2. 1983 the petitioner sent a letter seeking voluntary retirement and also give three months notice. The second respondent Mr. S. C. Kapur who was the Chairman-cum-Managing Director at that time by a letter dated 1. 3. 1983 wrote to the petitioner that there was no scheme of voluntary retirement in the Corporation but agreed to relieve the petitioner of his duty on the petitioner s paying the balance of notice period. The second respondent wrote in that letter " the proceedings for major penalty were contemplated against you at the time of relief". The petitioner filed C. W. No. 450/83.

( 2 ) ON 5. 4. 1983 this Court passed the following order in the writ petition whereby the petitioner and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director were asked to withdraw their respective letters. The petitioner returned for duty after the order passed by this Court. 5. 4. 83: Present: Mr. Ambrish Kumar for the petitioner. Dr. Anand Prakash for the respondents. Rule D. B. The petitioner came to this Court with the allegation that he had asked for voluntary retirementas per his letter dated 28th February, 1983. The petitioner claimed that as he had completed 20 years of service he may be permitted to 123 seek voluntary retirement. The respondent, however, informed him by its letter of 1st March, 1983 that there was no scheme for voluntary retirement but as from his letter it was clear that he wanted to be relieved of his duties, the Corporation was relieving him of his duties with effect from 1st March, 1983 and paying him the balance for the notice period. The petitioner apparently was dissatisfied and by his letter dated 1st March, 1983 communicated that he had asked for voluntary retirement and that he was returning the cheque for the notice period. Show cause was issued and reply has been filed. Dr. Anand Prakash, the learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation stated and that is his stand in the reply also, that there were some disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the petitioner. And there is no volauntary retirement scheme at present in the Corporation, therefore the question of any benefit of voluntary retirement scheme could not have been contemplated by the petitioner, more so because he is a financial adviser and he would in the normal course have to know all the schemes. Dr. Anand Prakash says that the petitioner has already been relieved of his services but if the petitioner is taking the stand that he does not want to leave the services and wants to withdraw the letter dated 28th February, 1983 the same can be permitted to be done if the petitioner should put it in a formal letter asking for the withdrawal of the letter dated 28th Feburary, 1983. Of course. Counsel for the petitioner stated that he is withdrawing this letter. A formal letter, however, should be put in by the petitioner withdrawing the letter dated 28th Feburary, 1983. Dr. Anand Prakash says that after the letter is withdrawn the letter issued on 1st March, 1983 relieving the petitioner from service will be withdrawn and cancelled. "the result of course will be that the petitioner will be back in service. Dr. Anand Prakash makes it clear that as mentioned in the letter dated 1st March, 1983 there were some