IMPORTANT POINT
The court reaffirmed that once an application for voluntary retirement is submitted and the conditions are met, it is deemed accepted unless explicitly rejected within the stipulated time, and prior judicial findings cannot be disregarded.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

Heard Shri P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas the Department of Agriculture is represented by Ms. R. Bora, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India is being sought to be invoked by the petitioner, who has put to challenge an order dated 04.08.2022 passed by the Director of Agriculture by which the application for voluntary retirement has been rejected. The principal ground of such rejection is that the petitioner did not have the eligibility criteria of having completed 20 years of service.

3. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, the basic facts of the case can be put in a nutshell in the following manner.

4. The petitioner was appointed as an LDA on 26.10.1986 and was posted in the Office of the Executive Engineer, Jorhat Division of the Agriculture Department, Government of Assam. He was transferred to Dibrugarh in the year 2002. However, he had suffered from tuberculosis and accordingly had applied for medical leave. It is the case of the petitioner that his application for extension of medical leave was however not granted and therefore having no other alternative on 29.03.2007, the petitioner has submitted an application for voluntary retirement. The said application was not responded to by the Department and on the other hand, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated by issuing a show-cause notice dated 08.02.2011. The crux of the two charges is with regard to unauthorized absence from 01.10.2002 till 01.01.2010 and it has further been alleged that in spite of notice being published in the newspaper, the petitioner did not resume his duties.

5. The said show-cause notice was replied to by the petitioner on 21.02.2011 whereafer an enquiry was conducted and a report was submitted on 31.10.2011 whereby the charges were held to be proved. The petitioner was thereafter issued a second show-cause notice on 09.11.2011 on the acceptability of the enquiry report which was also replied to by the petitioner on 15.03.2012.

6. At that stage, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/5567/2018 wherein the entire disciplinary proceeding was put to challenge.

7. This Court vide an elaborate judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 had however set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding and had directed the authorities to consider the application for voluntary retirement within 8(eight) weeks. Pursuant thereto, an exercise was conducted which has culminated in the Speaking Order dated 08.02.2022 whereby the application for voluntary retirement has been rejected. As already recorded above, the primary ground of rejection is non-completion of 20 years of service.

8. Shri Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the disciplinary authority has committed manifest error in law in rejecting the application which is in the teeth of the observations made by this Court in the judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 passed in the aforesaid WP(C)/5567/2018 instituted by the petitioner also. He submits that the period of 20 years appears to have been calculated only up to 2002 whereas the application for voluntary retirement was submitted in the year 2007 by which time, the petitioner had already completed 20 years of service. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the relevant part of the judgment and order dated 30.05.2022 wherein this Court had come to a definite finding that the petitioner had completed 20 years of service and therefore it is submitted that the said issue should not have been re-opened. Therefore, Shri Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner accordingly submits that the impugned Speaking Order dated 04.08.2022 is liable to be set aside and a direction be given passing appropriate orders accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner.

9. In support of his submission, Shri Dey, learned counsel for the petitione