MOHAN SINGH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner, who was a Constable in U.P. Police, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24th November, 1993, Annexure 7 to the writ petition, passed by respondent No. 2 and also sought for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner in service and pay full salaries with all benefits.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of present writ petition are that petitioner, according to his application dated 25 -6 -1986, a copy of which is being annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, applied for voluntary retirement on 25 -6 -1986 on the ground that he had joined the services of the department on 17 -10 -1965 and has completed 20 years of service. It is also stated in the said application, which as stated above is annexed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, that the petitioner is physically week and also suffering from illness and thus he is unable to serve the Government any further. It was, therefore, prayed that petitioner's voluntary retirement may be accepted and he may be granted pension. The said application filed by the petitioner was forwarded by the Circle Officer to whom the petitioner was serving before the Senior Superintendent of Police. The Senior Superintendent of Police accepted the voluntary resignation of the petitioner and thus the petitioner was relieved from duty. This order of relieving the petitioner from duty was passed on 29 -9 -1986 which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition. It appears that subsequent to it, petitioner filed application/representation dated, which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition, stating therein that in fact the petitioner had given an application for grant of three days leave but that application was rejected and torn away by the Station Officer Incharge and the petitioner proceeded on casual leave w.e.f. 27 -6 -1986 for seven days. When the petitioner came back, he came to know that he has been voluntary retired. He, therefore, prayed that his order of voluntary retirement may be quashed. Petitioner further made representation to the Regional Deputy Inspector General of Police, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Thereafter, petitioner again made representation to the Governor of U.P. copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. The Senior Superintendent of Police in pursuance of representation of the petitioner dated 29 -10 -1993 informed him by his communication letter dated 24 -11 -1993 that the allegations made by the petitioner have been enquired into by the Circle Officer, Kurawli, in which it was found that the petitioner has voluntarily given the application for voluntary retirement, which has been accepted by the police head quarters and necessary orders have already been issued. In these circumstances, the petitioner has now approached this Court, as stated above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that the respondents were directed to decide the petitioner's representation, which as already stated above, has been decided by the Senior Superintendent of Police and the said representation has been rejected. It is significant to note that the petitioner has nowhere denied that he has not filed any application seeking voluntary retirement or that he has not signed the said application Annexure 1 to the writ petition. The only argument advanced on behalf of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provision of Fundamental Rule 56 (1)(c), since the petitioner on the date when his voluntary retirement was accepted had not completed 25 years of service, the order accepting the voluntary retirement of the petitioner deserves to be quashed. Rule 56(1)(c) is reproduced below: