Point of Law : If the respondents are permitted to revisit such orders, it would lead to uncertainty for those who would want to arrange their affairs after having made a request, as per the extant legal regime for seeking voluntary retirement.

JUDGMENT :

RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.

Preface:

1. Although the above-captioned writ petitions are directed against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal [in short 'the Tribunal’] in two separate Original Applications (OAs), they are not only interconnected but also the parties to the lis are common.

2. The first writ petition i.e., W.P.(C)No.4424/2019 assails the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.3025/2017. The second writ petition i.e., W.P.(C)No.4438/2019 lays a challenge to the charge memo dated 08.03.2018 issued by respondent no.3 i.e., Chairperson, Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) [hereafter referred to as CBDT, unless the context requires otherwise] as also the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.1381/2018.

3. It is pertinent to note that the short issue which arises for consideration in the first writ petition is: whether the petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service on expiry of his notice period i.e., w.e.f. 10.02.2016?

3.1. It is because the respondents contend to the contrary which has led to the petitioner being issued the aforementioned charge memo dated 08.03.2018. Thus, the only charge levelled against the petitioner is that he has remained absent from duty w.e.f. 11.02.2016.

3.2. Therefore, quite logically, if we were to conclude that the petitioner had completed his qualifying period of service i.e., the period of 20 years as of 10.02.2016, the impugned charge memo would fall by the wayside i.e., would have to be set aside.

Background:

4. To appreciate the issues that have been raised in the above-captioned matters before us, the following broad facts are required to be noticed :

4.1. On 02.01.1996, the petitioner joined the Indian Revenue Service (IRS).

4.2. The petitioner on an understanding that he would complete 20 years in service on 10.02.2016, served a notice on 06.11.2015, as required, on the respondents under Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 [in short “CCS(Pension) Rules”], seeking voluntary retirement.

4.3. According to the petitioner, on 10.02.2016, he had completed 20 years, 1 month and 10 days in service.

4.4. It appears that, on 07.01.2016, respondent no.3/CBDT advised the petitioner, to serve a fresh notice, albeit after 02.01.2016, when, according to him, the petitioner would have completed 20 years in service. This communication though was forwarded to the Petitioner through the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax [hereafter referred to as "PCIT"]. In other words, according to respondent no.3/CBDT, the notice dated 06.11.2015 was premature.

4.5. The petitioner responded to this communication that emanated from respondent no.3/CBDT, via a reply dated 03.02.2016. In this reply, the petitioner, in brief, took the position that as long as the petitioner retires from service after completing the stipulated period, the fact that notice of intent seeking voluntary retirement from service is served earlier than provided under the extant regime would not render it untenable in law.

4.6. Given this position, respondent no.3/CBDT via communications dated 07.01.2016, 08.03.2016 and 12.09.2016 sought the advice of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT). Concededly, the response of DoPT [which is dated 23.12.2016], was in line with the stand taken by the petitioner in his letter dated 03.02.2016. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of DoPT’s advice is set forth hereafter :

“Department of Revenue may refer to their O.M. dated A-38012/40/2015-AdVI(A) dated 12.09.2016 seeking clarification regarding Voluntary Retirement notice of Sh. Bibhu Dutt Mishra, CIT(DR), ITAT, New Delhi under Rule 48(A) of