VENUGOPAL Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, then working as a Police Constable, submitted a representation dated 15.1.2008 to the competent appointing authority, namely, the Superintendent of Police, requesting permission to voluntarily retire from service with effect from 30.4.2008 A.N. With materials evidencing transmission of his representation, service book etc. by the Superintendent of Police to the Office of the Accountant General, he filed the Writ Petition seeking a direction to the respondents to permit him to voluntarily retire as sought for by him and for a declaration that he is entitled to voluntary retirement in terms of the statutory rules. When the Writ Petition came up for admission, the respondents submitted through learned Government Pleader on 17.6.2009, that the petitioner's application for permission to voluntarily retire from the service with effect from 30.4.2008 was rejected by the Superintendent of Police on 17.11.2008 and that therefore, the relief sought for cannot be granted. It was also then stated that disciplinary action is pending against the petitioner and for that reason also, permission could not be granted. In the light of those submissions, the learned single Judge declined relief to the petitioner holding that he is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the light of the fact that permission sought for by him to voluntarily retire from service was declined on the ground that disciplinary action is pending against the petitioner. The Superintendent of Police was, however, directed to issue to the petitioner a copy of the order stated to have been issued by that officer on 17.11.2008. Aggrieved, the petitioner appeals.

(2.) Appealing, the petitioner reiterates his specific ground in the Writ Petition that the competent authority having not refused to grant permission for retirement before the date on which he wished to retire as specified in the notice under Clause (i) of Rule 56 of Part III of the Kerala Service Rules, for short, the "K.S.R.", appellant's voluntary retirement became effective in terms of the proviso occurring after Clause (iv) of that rule. Clause (vi) of Rule 56 is also pointed out to state that cases in which permission cannot be given by the appointing authority shall be referred to Government intimating the fact to the person concerned, before the date notified in the officer's notice as the date on which he desires to retire. No disciplinary action was taken against the appellant and he has an unblemished track record of 33 years of qualifying service, it is contended.

(3.) In the Writ Appeal, a statement is filed on behalf of the second respondent Superintendent of Police. It is stated therein, inter alia, that the appellant's representation dated 15.1.2008, requesting that he be allowed to retire voluntarily from the service with effect from 30.4.2008 was forwarded along with his service book, to the Accountant General vide letter dated 12.2.2008 with request to verify his qualifying service. It is stated that in the meanwhile, on verification to ascertain his liabilities, it was found that the appellant is an accused in a criminal case registered on 30.1.2008 which is pending investigation. It is pointed out that the Superintendent of Police rejected the appellant's request for voluntary retirement in the light of Clause (v) of Rule 56 which provides an exception to the grant of permission to retire, in cases in which disciplinary proceedings are pending for imposition of a major penalty or the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the cases, is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted or in which prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched against the officer in a court of law. It is stated that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent from 15.1.2008 and on 7.4.2009, an application was received from him, for leave for 107 days and thereafter, Ext.R2 (a) order dated 7.4.2009 was issued on 28.7.2009 declaring him a deserter and consequential oral enquiry was ordered for unauthorised absence. In answer to the query posed by the Court earlier, it is stated that on 15.1.2008, the date on which the appellant notified his desire to voluntarily retire, he was a Police Constable and the Superintendent of Police was the appointing authority.