$~36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Date of Decision : 14.11.2018 % W.P.(C) 7910/2018 with CM APPL. 30333/2018 CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ORS.

..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sabharwal, Sr. Govt.

Counsel for Union of India with Mr.Pritish Sabharwal, Advocate along with Ms. Shambha, Public Prosecutor for CBI.

versus SH. SURENDRA DHILLON ..... Respondent Through: Ms. Pratima Gupta, Adv. for R-1.

Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, Adv. for R-2.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. K. CHAWLA VIPIN SANGHI, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition to assail the order dated 21.12.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi („the Tribunal‟) in O.A. No.1557 of 2015.

2. The Tribunal allowed the said original application preferred by the respondent and set aside the office order dated 29.01.2015 passed by the petitioner, whereby the petitioner communicated that the respondent stood voluntarily retired. The Tribunal also directed the petitioner to allow the respondent to re-join his services within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the order.

3. The respondent, at the relevant time, was serving as Deputy Superintendant of Police (DSP) with the CBI. On 08.07.2014, he submitted his application seeking Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) under Rule 48-A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter „Rules‟), having put in 23 years of service.

4. The request of the respondent to seek voluntary retirement was responded to by the petitioner vide communication dated 25.09.2014. This communication, inter alia, took notice of the fact that the 90 days notice period was to expire on 05.10.2014, and in light thereof the Deputy Director (Personnel) recommended acceptance of the said request and sought the decision of the competent authority before 05.10.2014. The communication specifically stated as follows:-

“Copy to:- HoZ, CBI, ACB New Delhi w.r.t. his ID No. 336/ VRS/ CBI/ ACB/ ZO/ 2014 dated 27/07/2014 for information please and requested that Shri. Surendra Dhillon, DSP, CBI, ACB Jaipur may not be relieved till approval of the Competent Authority received.” (emphasis supplied)

5. The respondent continued to serve even after expiry of the notice period of 90 days on 05.10.2014 as he was not relieved. Admittedly, he attended to his duties and responsibilities. While doing so, on 31.10.2014, he submitted his letter withdrawing his application to seek voluntary retirement. Nearly three months later, the respondent issued the impugned communication dated 29.01.2015 seeking to convey the approval of the competent authority for acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement dated 08.07.2014, with immediate effect. Since the petitioner insisted that the respondent stood voluntarily retired, he preferred the Original Application. The Tribunal allowed the original application placing reliance on the judgment in Shambhu Murari Sinha v. Project & Development India Ltd. & Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 437, and its own order in the case of Ved Prakash & Ors. v. Director General & Anr., OA No. 581/2008, decided on

12.05.2008.

6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the decision in Shambhu Murari Sinha (supra) was rendered in respect of a private employer, whereas, the case of the respondent is covered by Rule 48- A of the CCS Pension Rules. He specifically places reliance on State of Haryana and others vs. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293, and in particular on the following extract (paragraph 13) of the said decision, which reads as follows:-

“13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retire is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma case [(1977) 4 SCC 441 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 7] by the relevant rules and there is no provision in the rules to withhold permission in certain contingencies the voluntary retirement comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the