M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) DINESH Prasad Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2, working as Chief Office Superintendent in East Central Railways, Dhanbad, applied for voluntary retirement to the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railways, Dhanbad, on 26.2.2003. It was accepted by the order of the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer on 31.3.2003 with effect from 25.5.2003. Before expiry of the said period, the Railway authority issued a letter dated 22.4.2003,keeping the order of acceptance in abeyance as the respondent No. 2 had been proceeded with minor penalty charge sheet dated 8.4.2003. Thereafter the order of acceptance was cancelled by the order dated 4.8.2003. Challenging the same, the respondent No. 2 filed O.A. on 5.2.2004 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal passed order on 22.8.006 declaring the respondent -applicant to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 25.5.2003. Aggrieved by that, Union of India through the Senior Divisional Personal Officer, East Central Railways, Dhanbad, has filed the writ petition before this Court, seeking quashing of the order of the Tribunal giving declaration in favour of the respondent -applicant.
(2.) THE short facts are as follows: (A) Dinesh Prasad Chaturvedi, respondent No. 2, was working as Chief Office Superintendent, East Central Railways, Dhanbad. He applied for his voluntary retirement through application dated 26.2.2003. (B) His request for voluntary retirement was accepted by the Railway authority by the letter dated 31.3.2003 intimating the respondent -applicant that his voluntary retirement would take effect from 25.5.2003. (C) Even before the expiry of three month period, the respondent -applicant was issued charge sheet of minor penalty charges and a letter dated 22.4.2003 was sent to him, intimating that the order of acceptance was kept in abeyance pending finalization of minor penalty charge sheet and thereafter the Railway authority intimated him to join duty. However, he did not join duty. Thereupon his application for voluntary retirement was cancelled on 4.8.2003. (D) As he did not join duty, major penalty charge sheet dated 15.1.2004 for his unauthorised absence was issued against him. In the meantime, respondent No. 2, filed an application before the Tribunal. Ultimately, Tribunal allowed the application filed by the respondent -applicant, declaring him to have voluntarily retired from service with effect from 25.5.2003 and consequently quashed all the penalty charge sheets. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition has been filed by Union of India through the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railways, Dhanbad. Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the declaration as sought for by respondent -applicant is wrong for the reason that even though his application for voluntary retirement was accepted by the order dated 31.3.2003, it was directed to be kept in abeyance by letter dated 22.4.2003, i.e., even prior to 25.5.2003, the date on which the respondent -applicant was to retire, on the ground that the disciplinary penalty proceeding was pending against him and order of acceptance of the application dated 26.2.2003 was cancelled, vide letter dated 4.8.2003 and therefore, the order of the Tribunal giving declaration as sought for by the respondent - applicant is not sustainable. He cited three decisions , B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , Power Finance Corporation Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia and , Shambhu Mirari Sinha v. Project and Development India Ltd. and Anr., in support of his argument.
(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further contended that when the order accepting the application for voluntary retirement was kept in abeyance within the period of three month notice, i.e. prior to the date on which the order of voluntary retirement comes into effect, the same is in consonance with Rule 66 of the Railway Service (Pension) Rules and as such the power given under the said Rule 66 has been properly exercised by the authority and that the respondent -applicant cannot, therefore, be allowed to voluntarily retire on 25.5.2003 as held by the Tribunal.;