P.DHANA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition is by a Bench Clerk working in the Subordinate Judiciary at the Principal Sub Court, Hosur, challenging the order dated 6.7.2019, whereby her request for voluntary retirement has been declined by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to Rule 56(3) of the Fundamental Rules in relation to the process to be adopted for considering an application for voluntary retirement to contend that the respondents in order to defeat the claim of the petitioner initiated disciplinary action, but in the present case, the application for voluntary retirement had been moved on 10.12.2018, on which no orders came to be passed within three months, i.e., up to 10.3.2019, and it is only thereafter a charge memo for commencing disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was issued on 28.3.2019. The submission therefore in short is that according to the Rule, referred to herein above, once no orders had been passed within three months as stipulated therein, the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement shall be deemed to have been accepted and therefore no action could have been taken against the petitioner as a consequence of the issuance of the charge memo dated 28.3.2019 or even thereafter. It is submitted that a specific order in writing was required to be passed which was never done and therefore the impugned order having been passed on 6.7.2019 is a nullity.