- (1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the decisions of the corporation rejecting his application for voluntary retirement. The scheme, introduced by notification dated June 29, 2004, was titled "voluntary Retirement Scheme for the officers/officials of the corporation notwithstanding Regulation 22-A of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971. " In its para I. 2 it was said, "the Corporation will have the right not to grant voluntary retirement to any of Officers/officials or the reasons to be recorded in writing. " In para I. 3 it said, "the scheme will be in operation for a period of three months from the date of its notification. " Paragraph IV. 3 of the scheme provided, "care shall be taken to ensure that highly skilled and qualified officers and staff are not given the option. Further, voluntary retirement could be denied in the following circumstances: (i) Where departmental proceedings have been initiated or are contemplated and the disciplinary authority is of the view that the case may result in the imposition of penalty of removal or dismissal; or (ii) Where, prosecution is either contemplated or has actually been launched against the employee concerned. " In para. VIII. b)it was mentioned, "the Voluntary Retirement of the employee under this Scheme would be subject to Vigilance clearance. "
(2.) THE petitioner submitted his application on July 6, 2004, that is, within the period stipulated in the scheme. His application was rejected on November 3, 2004. He submitted an application dated November 28, 2004 seeking review of the decision. Treating that application as a fresh application, the competent authority rejected that on December 14, 2004. One Monotosh Roy, another officer of the corporation, also applied for voluntary retirement in terms of provisions of the scheme. His application was also rejected on November 3, 2004. Curiously he applied for review of the decision by submitting an application dated october 14, 2004. By order dated November 29, 2004 his review application was allowed, and he was granted voluntary retirement. The case of Monotosh has an important relation to the petitioner's case, and that is this. Both of them with five other officers and employees of the corporation were proceeded against. Seven charge-sheets all dated april 18, 2001 had been issued against them; a joint inquiry was conducted by the duly appointed inquiry officer. They all participated in the inquiry. The inquiry officer submitted his report on April 28, 2004. He recorded the findings that charges levelled against the petitioner had not been established. He, however, recorded that charges levelled against Monotosh had been proved.
(3.) THE disciplinary authority issued a notice dated April 30, 2004 calling upon the petitioner to submit his comments on the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. He did not disagree with the inquiry officer, and he did not either propose to impose any punishment. On receipt of the notice the petitioner submitted his reply dated June 1, 2004. The final decision exonerating him was, however, given by the disciplinary authority only on January 25, 2005. In the case of manotosh, however, the disciplinary authority agreed with the inquiry officer and imposed punishment. Since application submitted by the petitioner was rejected, and since the authorities did not respond to his legal notice demanding justice, he took out this writ petition. In his legal notice he specifically stated that his application seeking voluntary retirement had been rejected without assigning any reason. He also requested the authorities to accept his application with effect from the date he was entitled to go on voluntary retirement in terms of provisions of the scheme. The respondents are contesting the case. They have filed an opposition. In the opposition for the first time they have stated that the petitioner's application was rejected in terms of provisions in paras. IV. 3 (ii) and VIII. (b) of the scheme.;