UNION OF INDIA Vs. VEERPAL SINGH VAIDWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23-9-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 was a trained Senior Telecom Operating Assistant (General), posted at Baraut in the Secondary Switching Area of Telecom, District Meerut. THE Appointing Authority of respondent No. 1 is the Divisional Engineer and he is also the head of the office as per Rule 14 of the Delegation of Financial Power Rules, 1978. Photocopy of the nomination in this respect is Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 an employee of the Central Government who has put in 20 years of service can apply or voluntary retirement. THE relevant rule is quoted in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. THE respondent No. 1 applied on 8-3-2002 for voluntary retirement vide Annexure-2 to the writ petition. THE competent authority i. e. , the Divisional Engineer, Telecom Baraut accepted this application vide letter dated 15-3-2002 Annexure-3 to the writ petition. This order was allegedly given to the petitioner on 15-3-2002 but he refused to take it after going through it and he left the office abruptly. Hence, the acceptance of his application for voluntary retirement was sent to him through registered post on 16-3-2002.

(3.) A perusal of Annexure-2 to the writ petition which was filed by the respondent No. 1 dated 8-3-2002 praying for permission to retire shows that there is no mention therein that the respondent No. 1 wishes to retire from some definite future date. The only conclusion, therefore, can be is that the respondent No. 1 wanted to retire with immediate effect. By the order dated 15-3-2002 Annexure-3 to the writ petition his prayer to retire was accepted. The letter dated 15-3-2002 which is a letter to the respondent No. 1 mentioned that on 15-3-2002 the charge was taken over from the respondent No. 1 but he subsequently wanted to withdraw his application dated 8-3-2002. It has been stated in para 8 of the writ petition that the respondent No. 1 refused to take the letter dated 15-3-2002 by which his application for voluntary retirement had been accepted. As stated in paragraph 11 of the writ petition, the letter dated 15-3-2002 Annexure-4 to the writ petition which purports to have been written by the respondent No. 1 appears to be ante dated and we are inclined to accept this version of the writ petitioner that the letter was ante dated, because it was despatched on 19-3-2002, vide para 10 of the writ petition.