COMMISSIONER OF POLICE Vs. SATISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Commissioner of Police, has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/ Tribunal) in O.A. No.3781/2011. By the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application preferred by the respondent/ applicant and set aside the orders dated 24.08.2011 and 02.09.2011 passed by the petitioner. By these orders, the request of the applicant to withdraw the notice for voluntary retirement was rejected. The Tribunal has also reinstated the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the applicant was initially inducted as Head Constable (Ministerial) in Delhi Police (DP) on 28.04.1982. He was promoted as Sub -Inspector (Ministerial) on 10.02.2009. He availed of sanctioned Earned Leaves (EL) from 27.12.2010. Vide an application dated 28.01.2011, he sought extension of his EL by further 21 days, which was not granted. At that stage, he tendered his notice for voluntary retirement on 03.02.2011, to be effective from 01.08.2011. He also sought Extraordinary Leave with effect from 28.01.2011 to 31.07.2011. However, before the intended date, i.e. 01.08.2011, vide letter dated 16.03.2011, he withdrew his request for voluntary retirement. We may note that this was the first occasion when the applicant made his application to seek voluntary retirement from a future date and before the arrival of the said date, he withdrew the said application. During this period, the applicant sought lighter duties, and on his request, he was transferred to Police Control Room (PCR) vide order dated 08.08.2011. The applicant sought to give the excuse of having family troubles for his first episode of his tendering notice for voluntary retirement, and withdrawing the same and seeking change of his duties.

(3.) THE applicant sought to place reliance on a string of decisions of the Supreme Court to submit that since the withdrawal of the notice for voluntary retirement had been made before the date of actual release from service, the said withdrawal was valid and the applicant was entitled to be deemed to continue in service and that the petitioner could not have refused to permit the respondent to withdraw his notice of voluntary retirement. The decisions relied upon by the applicant were the following: