1. - Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2001 whereby the petitioner's application for withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement has been rejected, aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2001 whereby the petitioner has been retired from his service, and aggrieved by the charge-sheet dated 31.01.2001, the petitioner has approached this Court.

2. In short the petitioner's case is that he was appointed as IV-Class employee on 22.12.1964. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Jamadar on 30.06.1987. Having put in more than thirty-five years of service, on 10.10.2000, the petitioner submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement from his services w.e.f. 01.02.2001. However, much before February 01, 2001 on 05.12.2000 after changing his mind, the petitioner submitted an application withdrawing his application seeking voluntary retirement ('the withdrawal application', for short). However, vide order dated 29.01.2001, the petitioner's withdrawal application was rejected ostensibly on the ground that "it was found to be unacceptable". Subsequently, vide order dated 31.01.2001, the petitioner was retired from his service. Since the petitioner was hopeful that his withdrawal application would be accepted, the petitioner protested the order dated 31.01.2001. In order to teach a lesson to the petitioner, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 31.01.2001 itself. Since the petitioner is aggrieved by the said orders mentioned above, he has filed the present writ petition before this Court.

3. Mr. S.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before this Court : firstly, that prior to the date of voluntary retirement specified in the application, the employee has a right to withdraw the application seeking voluntary retirement. Secondly, the employer does not have the power to reject the same. For, the rejection of such an application would tantamount to termination of service or forceful removal from service. Thirdly, the order dated 29.01.2001 is a non-speaking order as the order merely states that "the withdrawal application was found to be unacceptable". But the said order does not give any reason as to why the said withdrawal application was found "to be unacceptable". Thus, the concerning authority does not reveal his mind. Therefore, the said order suffers from the virus of being a non-speaking order. Fourthly, before the withdrawal application could be rejected, an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the petitioner. However, in the present case no such opportunity was given. In order to buttress his contentions, he has relied upon the cases of Balram Gupta v. Union of India & Anr., 1987 Supp. SCC 228 , Ram Kali Devi (Smt.) v. Manager, Punjab National Bank, Shamshabad & Ors., (1998) 9 SCC 558 , Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 437 , Bank of India & Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 721 and Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer & Ors. v. Smt. Sharda Pareek, 2006 WLC (UC) 1.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Shashi Shekhawet appearing on behalf of Mr. R.P. Singh, AAG for the State, has vehemently contended that Rule 50 (4) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 ('the Rules', for short) clearly states that an employee shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of the appointing authority. Therefore, the employee cannot claim that he has a right to withdraw his notice. He has merely a right of consideration. Until and unless his notice is accepted by the employer, the employee cannot claim that he has a right that his notice should be accepted. Secondly, according to the Government of Rajasthan's Decision, the employee is duty bound to show material change in the circumstances in consideration of which the notice was originally given. In the present case, the petitioner has not revealed the existence of any material change. Therefore, the appropriate authority was justifie