CHANDRA BAHADUR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel of the Respondents and perused the record.

(2.) The Petitioner was appointed as Constable in U.P. Police Force in 1974. On 23.11.2002 he applied for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003. A copy of this application is on record as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. It was forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi on 23.11.2003 to higher authorities. Thereafter it appears that no decision was taken thereon though the Petitioner sent some further letters. The Respondents instead of treating the Petitioner having voluntary retired on 1st September, 2003, took him as if he has continued in service and by order dated 24th June, 2006 he was placed under suspension on the allegation that he was absent from duty w.e.f. 6.10.2004. A charge-sheet was issued on 15th June, 2006 which culminated in an order of dismissal dated 15th February, 2007 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kaushambi.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that having applied for voluntarily retirement w.e.f. 1st September, 2003 in accordance with Fundamental Rule 56(c), he ought to be deemed to have retired on that date and no proceedings thereafter could have continued. Hence the entire proceedings are illegal and void ab initio. Reliance is placed on a Division Bench decision in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Krishna Chandra Agarwal,2007 2 ESC 760 Considering similar provision therein this Court in paras 5 to 7 of the judgment held as under: