SYED MOHD. JAWED ALAM Vs. GENERAL MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAYS, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, BARODA HOUSE, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant has challenged order dated 22.02.2011 whereby applicants request for voluntary retirement has been accepted with immediate effect after deleting the allegations made by him in his application for voluntary retirement (page 13). He has further sought a direction to the respondents to continue him as Chief Inspector, Catering in the Northern Railways with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he had given a request for voluntary retirement on 30.9.2010 with effect from 31.12.2010 and had also sought LAP with effect from 4.10.2006 to 16.12.2010 (page 18) on the ground that he was unable to work due to communal and corrupt environment. The respondents asked him to explain and give specific instances of the allegations made by him vide Memorandum dated 30.12.2010 (page 19) informing him that his request for voluntary retirement would be considered after receiving his reply. No reply was given by the applicant. According to the applicant in these circumstances since he had not given any reply and his application was not found to be correct, at best respondents could have rejected his request for voluntary retirement. Instead of rejecting his claim, respondents wrote another letter to the applicant on 31.1.2011 (page 21) once again calling upon him to give reply within 3 days otherwise it will be presumed that the allegations made by him are not correct and action would be taken on his request for voluntary retirement after deleting the allegations made by him. The applicant did not give any reply to this letter also yet vide order dated 22.2.2011, his request for voluntary retirement was accepted after deleting the allegations made by him.

(3.) It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that either request for voluntary retirement could have been accepted or rejected but it had to be done within 3 months. Reliance was placed on Rule 67 of Railway Services (Pension) Rules, 1993. He further submitted that the applicant could have withdrawn his request for voluntary retirement before the intended date of retirement and no withdrawal could have been made by him after the intended date of retirement as per sub -rule (4) of Rule 67. He further submitted that in case applicant did not give any supporting documents to prove the allegations made by him, at best respondents could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against him but neither could they have deleted the allegations nor accepted his request for voluntary retirement after a period of 3 months. In fact, the request could not have been accepted in the given form even as per Master Circular dated 26.5.1980 as annexed by the respondents themselves and could only have rejected the same, if they were not satisfied by the kind of application given by him.