- (1.) Santosh Gupta, Medical Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, joined service in the State of Punjab in 1966. She came over to the Chandigarh Administratione on deputation in 1973. By now, she had put in about 24 years' service. According to Rule 3(3) of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975 after an employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service, he or she may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service, and if the necessary permission for retirement is not refused before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the aforesaid period.
(2.) In the present case, the petitioner served three months' notice on the Secretary to Government, Punjab, Health and Family Welfare Department, on 16th April, 1987, with a request that she be releived from her duties after the expiry of three months' notice, that is, with effect from 31st July, 1987. However, the respondents did not inform the petitioner about their decision with regard to the grant of permission or refusal within the stipulated period which expired on 31st July, 1987. The petitioner made a number of representations but she has not been relieved from her duties and instead, was informed by the respondents that she could not be relieved as some charge-sheets etc. were to be served on her with regard to some matter relating to the year 1984. Aggrieved against that, the petitioner has approached this court for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner having been voluntarily retired under Rule 3 of the Punjab Civil Services (Premature Retirement) Rules, 1975, and to relieve her forthwith, as also to pay her the dues of pension, gratuity, leave encasement etc. in accordance with the rules.
(3.) In the written statement filed by the Deputy Director, Health Services, Punjab, Chandigarh, the impugned action is sought to be justified by stating that an inquiry was pending against the petitioner and it was on that account that the petitioner had not been permitted to retire.;