S. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 19.07.2013 in denying permission sought for voluntary retirement. Consequently, he is seeking for a direction to the first respondent to accept the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement and relieve him from service.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is as follows:

(3.) MR . R. Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that till this day no charge memo was issued against the petitioner and therefore, his application for voluntary retirement cannot be rejected. He further submitted that the petitioner having complied with the conditions stipulated under Rule 56(1)(e) of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamilnadu Government, he is entitled to seek voluntary retirement. It is his further contention that even issuing of a charge memo after notice given by the petitioner under Rule 56(1) will not disentitle the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement. Contemplation of the departmental proceedings means only by issuing a charge memo and therefore, the stage before issuing such charge memo cannot be termed as contemplation of departmental proceedings, is his last submission. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on an unreported decision of the Division Bench made in W.P. No. 24799 of 2009 dated 20.11.2013, an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge made in W.P. No. 10756 of 2012 dated 26.07.2012, unreported decision made in W.P. No. 34253 of 2006 of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2010.