J.P. JHANJI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the Government order the 'voluntary retirement' of an officer inspite of the fact that he had withdrawn his request before the date stipulated by him in his notice This is the short question that arises in this case. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Chief Accounts Officer with the State of Haryana. He, unfortunately, developed a handicap. His hearing was impaired. On September 3, 1992, the director Treasuries and Accounts, Haryana asked the petitioner to report for medical examination. Feeling embarrassed, the petitioner, vide his letter dated September 15, 1992 requested the Government to grant him voluntary retirement w.e.f. April 30, 1993. On October 13, 1992, the State Government passed an order suspending the petitioner. No charge-sheet was issued to him. On January 6, ,1993, the petitioner addressed a communication to the Government pointing out that due to uncertainty created by continuing suspension without issue of any charge-sheet, he was withdrawing his order of voluntary retirement with effect from April 30, 1993 submitted by him on September 15, 1992. NO intimation was sent to the petitioner. The date of 'voluntary retirement' viz. April 30, 1993 as stipulated by the petitioner passed without issue of any order. The petitioner faced a dilemma. Consequently on June 3, 1993, the petitioner again informed the Government that in case he was reinstated without delay and allowed to enjoy pensionary benefits etc., he was willing to retire voluntarily. He even sent a notice through his counsel. On June 15, 1993, the Government conveyed the impugned order dated May 28, 1993 to the petitioner, He was informed that he was "permitted to retire prematurely from Government service w.ei. April 30, 1993 under rule 532-B of Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume II without prejudice to the action that may be taken as a result of disciplinary proceedings pending against him." Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has approached this Court through the present writ petition. He challenges this order as being wholly illegal 'and violative of the rules.

(3.) In the petition, prayer for quashing of the order of suspension has also been made. However, at the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has given up his challenge to this order. Consequently, the pleadings of the parties insofar as these relate to the validity of the order dated June 15, 1993, a copy of which has been appended as Annexure P7 to the writ petition, are being noticed.