Veerender Singh Siradhana, J. - (1.) THE instant writ application has been instituted by the petitioner praying for the following relief(s): "ii) By an appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to accept the voluntarily retirement of the petitioner with effect from 28.02.2010 holding the communication dated 10.02.2008 to be illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. iii) By an appropriate order or direction the respondents be directed to release all the retiral benefits to the petitioner considering the petitioner deemed to have retired as on 28.02.2010 in view of his notice dated 12.01.2010 and release all his retiral benefits immediately with an interest @ 18% from the date it has become due. iv) By an appropriate order or direction, the cost of the writ petition may also be quantified in favour of the humble petitioner. v) By an appropriate order or direction the petitioner may also be granted exemplary compensation in view of harassment caused and mental agony suffered to the extent it is deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court. vi) Any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Courts deems fit in the interest of justice."
(2.) BRIEFLY , the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy needs to be first noticed. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer and was promoted in due course of time as Assistant Engineer. He joined the promoted post on 6th May, 1976, while the petitioner was serving as Assistant Engineer at Udaipur, he proceeded on leave w.e.f. 1st May, 2003 up to 3rd May, 2003. The leave was further extended to 21st May, 2003. The petitioner applied for two years leave w.e.f. 21st May, 2003, under the Scheme of 'Special Leave' wherein 'Special Leave' could be availed up to a maximum period of five years. The petitioner was also accorded promotion to the rank of Executive Engineer during the period of leave, as would be reflected from the order dated 25th February, 2004 (Annexure -4). The petitioner resumed his duties, as Executive Engineer, at Water Resources Department, Udaipur, in the forenoon of 30th April, 2008. However, since the petitioner was not keeping good health, he applied for voluntary retirement in the month of August, 2008, expressing his willingness to relieve him of the duties w.e.f. 3rd November, 2008. The application was not accepted on the ground of contemplated departmental enquiry and he was served with a charge -sheet vide order dated 21st February, 2008, for unauthorized absence from duty w.e.f. 3rd May, 2003 till 30th April, 2008. The departmental enquiry culminated into a punishment of withholding of three grade annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dated 8th June, 2009 (Annexure -5). The State -respondents, vide order dated 6th August, 2009, observed that the petitioner could be accorded voluntary retirement under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996', for short) (Annexure -6). The petitioner again made an application dated 31st August, 2009 seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 14th September, 2009. The State -respondents, vide communication, dated 31st August, 2009, informed the petitioner that he cannot be permitted voluntary retirement unless he served the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority of withholding of three grade annual increments with cumulative effect, vide order dated 8th June, 2009, of which the petitioner is aggrieved of. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application, strenuously argued that Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996, no where contemplates such a condition where the request of the petitioner, to allow him voluntary retirement could be declined. According to the learned counsel, the guidelines provided under the Government of Rajasthan's decision, specifically provide that a notice of voluntary retirement served after completion of "fifteen years" qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority and such acceptance is to be allowed generally in all cases except that the Appointing Authority shall withhold permission to retire a Government servant; in the case of a Government servant: (i) who is under suspension, (ii) in whose case the disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service and (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. None of the conditions obtained in the case of the petitioner, and therefore, the action is bad in the eye of law.
(3.) IT is further contended that under Rule 50 Sub -rule 3(a) further provides that a Government servant referred to in sub -rule (1), is entitled to make a request, in writing, to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months for reasons stated therein. The appointing authority, in such a situation, subject to the provisions of sub -rule (2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months.;