PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) Both the writ petitions are out of common facts and, therefore, are being decided by passing a common order.
(2.) The brief facts as noticed by this court in the writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of conductor on 4-10-1977. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 11.3.1999. The application was forwarded by the respondents on 16.4.1999. The respondents did not grant the voluntary retirement to the petitioner as they did not find the proof of medical ailment issued by any appropriate medical authority.
(3.) The respondents filed a detailed reply in the writ petitions pertaining to seeking of the voluntary retirement and stated that the petitioners were remaining wilfully absent from duty and had indulged in corrupt practices. The respondents took a categorical stand in the writ petition No. 1740/2005 whereby they stated that an enquiry was pending against the petitioner and in those circumstances there was no question of answering respondents accepting the application submitted by the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement until the petitioners service record was clean or the contemplated departmental enquiries came to an end.;