- (1.) The instant Letters Patent Appeal has arisen out of the order dated 28.01.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.2344 of 2007 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ, of the appellant/ petitioner, for acceptance of voluntary retirement.
(2.) Appellant/ petitioner filed the aforesaid writ stating that he was appointed as Medical Officer vide Notification No.841(2) dated 04.08.1983 and pursuant to the notification he joined on 24.08.1983 as Jail Doctor under the Home Department. That he worked at various places and was transferred as Medical Officer to Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa. That he sent an application for casual leave from 09.10.2001 to 11.10.2001 and the Civil Surgeon, Chaibasa, vide Memo No.1584 dated 16.10.2001 accorded approval to the said application. Thereafter the appellant submitted an application for extension of his casual leave up to 11th November, 2011. That from time to time the appellant sent applications to the Superintendent, Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa for extending the period of casual leave and he continued to remain on leave. That he was suffering from Bronchical Asthma as such he applied for voluntary retirement on 19.10.2004. That he was surprised to know after receipt of letter No.117(8) dated 24.03.2006 issued by the Respondent No.3, Deputy Secretary, Department of Health, that a departmental proceeding had been initiated against him vide Circular No.166(8) dated 29.09.2005 and by the said letter he was directed to submit the reply to the second show-cause. It is stated that he again submitted an application dated 28.07.2006 to Respondent No.2, Secretary, Department of Health, to accept his voluntary retirement from service as he had completed the minimum mandatory years of service required for voluntary retirement. It is stated that no order was passed on his application which amounts to illegal and arbitrary action on the part of the respondent. That the departmental proceeding and order dated 24.03.2006 directing the appellant to submit his show-cause on the basis of exparte departmental enquiry is illegal. On the above grounds the aforesaid writ was filed by the appellant-petitioner.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Single Judge should have considered the fact that the applications by the appellant/ petitioner for extension of leave was neither rejected by the respondents nor any communication regarding the decision was sent by the respondents, as such, the appellant was under the impression that his application for extension of leave has been allowed by the respondents. That the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the entire departmental proceeding was initiated in an ex-parte manner without service of notice to the appellant and the entire action of the respondent is in violation of the provisions of Civil Services Classification Rules and Service Code and is violative of the principles of natural justice. That the petitioner had completed the mandatory minimum years of service and the respondents should have accepted his application for voluntary retirement which has not been considered and appreciated by the learned Single Judge.;