SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(All) 3903

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Chandra Bhushan Pandey -Appellant
Versus
State of U.P.&Ors. -Respondent
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15711 of 2007
Decided On : 02-11-2010

Advocates:
Q.H.Siddiqui, Rakesh Kr.Shukla

The central legal point established in the judgment is the right of a government servant to retire prematurely under Fundamental Rule 56(c) and the restrictions on voluntary retirement when a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated.

Headnote:

Voluntary Retirement - Fundamental Rule 56(c) - FR-56(c), Rule 161 of Bombay Civil Service Rules - Article 1801(d) of Railways Establishment Code - The court discussed the provisions of FR-56(c) and its interpretation, emphasizing the right of a government servant to retire prematurely after giving a minimum three months' notice. The court also highlighted the restrictions on voluntary retirement when a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, and the necessity for the appointing authority to communicate its decision to withhold permission to the government servant. The judgment emphasized that the government servant does not require any positive order of the appointing authority to retire voluntarily under FR-56(c, unless required by the rules otherwise.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a constable in U.P. Police Force, applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003. The respondents treated him as continuing in service and subsequently dismissed him on the allegation of unauthorized absence.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement became effective on 1st September, 2003, and he should be deemed to have retired on that date. The subsequent proceedings and actions of the respondents treating the petitioner as continuing in service were deemed illegal and quashed.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was effective and whether the subsequent proceedings against him were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the provisions of Fundamental Rule 56(c) and the restrictions on voluntary retirement when a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated. It held that the petitioner was entitled to be deemed to have retired on 1st September, 2003, and the subsequent actions of the respondents were illegal.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned order of dismissal was quashed. The petitioner was deemed to have retired on 1st September, 2003 and entitled to his retiral benefits accordingly, subject to adjustment of any amount paid to him over and above the retiral benefits.

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.:-

1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel of the respondents and perused the record.

2. The petitioner petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P. Police Force in 1974. On 23.11.2002 he applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003. A copy of this application is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi on 23.11.2003 to higher authorities. Thereafter it appears that no decision was taken thereon though the petitioner sent some further letters. The respondents instead of treating the petitioner having voluntary retired on 1st September, 2003, took him as if he has continued in service and by order dated 24th June, 2006 he was placed under suspension on the allegation that he was absent from duty w.e.f. 06.10.2004. A charge sheet was issued on 15th June, 2006 which culminated in an order of dismissal dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that having applied for voluntarily retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003 in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56(c), he ought to be deemed to have retired on that date and no proceedings thereafter could have continued. Hence the entire proceedings are illegal and void ab initio. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Krishna Chandra Agarwal 2007(2) ESC 760. Considering similar provision therein this Court in para 5 to 7 of the judgment held as under:

"5. A careful reading of FR-56(c) makes it clear that a Government Servant can be retired by the employer prematurely without assigning any reason after he attains the age of fifty years by giving three months notice at any time. Similarly a Government Servant can also seek voluntarily retirement at any time after attaining the age of forty five years giving a similar three months notice. The proviso of FR-56 (c) further provides that the Government Servant may be retired by the employer giving a shorter notice or without any notice but in such a contingency, he be entitled to claim some amount for the period of notice by which such notice falls short of three months. Similarly, where the Government Servant tenders notice, it is open to the appointing authority to allow him to retire without any notice or for a shorter period of notice without incurring any liability to pay any penalty on account of such permission. It further provides where a disciplinary proceeding is pending or contemplated, the notice shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided that in a case of contemplated enquiry, the government Servant is informed before expiry of period of notice that the same has not been accepted. Therefore, the proviso restrict the right of the Government Servant to retire by tendering three months notice, where a departmental enquiry is pending and in such a case, the voluntary retirement would be effective only after the said notice is accepted by the appointing authority, even if the period of notice is expired, but where enquiry is only contemplated, in such a case acceptance of notice would be necessary provided the Government Servant is informed by the employer before expiry of period of his notice that it has not been accepted. A somewhat similar provision contained in Rule 161 of Bombay Civil Service Rules came up for consideration before the Apex Court in B.J. Shelat Vs. State of Gujrat and others, (1978) 2 SCC 202. Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules empowered the Government Servant to retire by giving a three months notice in writing after attaining the age of 55 years. However, proviso under Rule 161(2)(ii) restricted such right of the Government Servant where the departmental enquiry is pending or contemplated or the Government Servant is under suspension and the said proviso reads as under :

"Provided that it shall be open to the appointing











Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top