Voluntary retirement notice deemed accepted if no contrary order issued by competent authority within 90-day notice period, absent suspension or pending/contemplated proceedings; subsequent disciplinary actions void.

ORDER 

Per Justice Om Prakash VII, Member-J 

Since the relief(s) sought for by the applicants in the above two O.As are interconnected to each other and have been heard together, therefore, and as such we propose to decide the above Original Applications by passing a common order.

2. The facts of O.A. no. 144 of 2018 are being taken, being leading one, for brevity of the case.

3. In O.A. No. 144 of 2018, the applicant has sought the following main relief(s):-

“(a) issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned speaking order dated 1.12.2017 passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, E.C. Railway, Mughalsarai District Chandauli.

(b) Issue an order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay all dues, pensionary benefit as well as consequential benefits of the applicant by treating voluntarily retirement.

(c) ……

(d) ……”

3.1 The facts leading to this Original Application are that the applicant was initially appointed w.e.f. 23.2.1982 and he was due to retire w.e.f. 30.9.2018. The applicant was suffering from the various ailments and his medical treatment was going on under the doctor Anil Kumar Rastogi, Badi Piyari, Varanasi. Due to his ailment, the applicant submitted an application dated 17.1.2017 seeking voluntary retirement from service pursuant to Railway Board’s circular dated 1.6.1981 read with another circular dated 24^th June, 1981. According to the O.A. the competent authority did not take any decision on the application of the applicant seeking voluntary retirement within the statutory period i.e. 90 days from the date of submission of application and as such he would be deemed to be retired from service w.e.f. 17.4.2017 i.e. just after completion of 90 days from the date of submission of application seeking voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the applicant made an application on 26.4.2017 followed by reminder dated 22.6.2017 before the authority concerned seeking release of his settlement dues treating him to be voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 17.4.2017. Being aggrieved, the applicant knocked the door of this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1119 of 2017, which came to be disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 22.9.2017 with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the representation of the applicant dated 26.4.2017 within a period of three months. In compliance thereof, the respondents have rejected the representation of the applicant vide order dated 1.12.2017, which is under challenge in O.A. No. 144 of 2018.

4. Per-contra, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that the applicant submitted an application dated 17.1.2017 before the competent authority seeking voluntary retirement. Meanwhile, the applicant had filed O.A. No. 1119 of 2017 which came to be decided with a direction to the DRM, E.C. Railway to decide the representation of the applicant dated 26.4.2017 and in compliance thereof, the respondent (DRM) has rejected the representation of the applicant. However, the applicant preferred an appeal against the decision of DRM, which came to be rejected vide order dated 22.2.2018 with a direction to the applicant to join his duty at the earliest. The respondents have further averred that the application of the applicant seeking voluntary retirement was placed before the competent authority, who had recorded its findings on file that huge number of printed