CHANDRAKANT BALKRISHNARAO PHATALE Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE NANDED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an employee of Judicial Department working in nanded District whose application dated 5/9/2000 for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement with effect from 5/11/2000 was rejected by the learned district Judge, Nanded by the order dated 30/10/2000.

(2.) It is no more disputed that the petitioner was working on a ministerial staff of newly established Court at Loha as Assistant Superintendent. On 17-7-2000 the petitioner after rendering 21 years service gave notice for voluntary retirement under Rule 66 (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 [hereinafter referred to as, "the M. C. S. (Pension) Rules"] intending to retire with effect from 5-11-2000. The learned District Judge, Nanded accepted the notice on 20-7-2000 and directed submission of pension papers. Thereafter the petitioner gave an application for permission to withdraw his notice for voluntary retirement vide Outward No. 862/2000 dated 5/9/2000, however, the same came to be refused by order dated 30/10/2000. 2a. By this writ petition, the petitioner prayed that the order of the learned district Judge, Nanded bearing No. 14535/2000 dated 2/11/2000 by which order dated 30-10-2000 passed by the learned District Judge, Nanded was communicated to the petitioner may be set aside, and the petitioner may be allowed to continue in the service with all consequential benefits.

(3.) The respondents filed their rejoinder affidavit and stated that the order passed by the learned District Judge is legal and proper. The petitioner has not pursued the remedy of administrative appeal. The petitioner has directly filed the writ petition without availing alternate efficacious remedy of filing an administrative appeal. The petitioner never urged personal hearing in the context of his request for withdrawal of the notice for voluntary retirement. Elaborate administrative order is passed giving reasons for refusal to reject the prayer for withdrawal. So, for valid reasons, the application for withdrawal of notice for voluntary retirement was rejected and as such there is no merit in the writ petition. It is also alleged that the petitioner was habitually availing leave and had strained relations with the members of the staff, the advocates and the police. The learned District Judge has scanned the entire service record of the incumbent in order to assess his utility to the Department for invoking discretion in his favour under Rule 66 (5) of the M. C. S. (Pension) Rules. A special report from the presiding Officer, Civil Court, Loha was also called for. So, the discretion was properly and legally used and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.