HARI PRAKASH CHAWLA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was in the services of Railway Protection Force was transferred against which he preferred appeal, The appeal having rejected on 9th July, 1996 the petitioner gave notice for voluntary retirement to the Chief Security Commissioner, N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur on 10th July, 1996. After such notice, the Respondent did not choose to pass any specific order either accepting or rejecting the prayer for voluntary retirement, but by their letter dated 18th September, 1996, the petitioner was informed that the application can be entertained only on his joining to the transferred place. At that stage, the petitioner moved this court by filing a writ petition, C.W.J.C. No. 4972/97 for his voluntary retirement. While the writ petition was pending, the Respondents initiated departmental proceeding against the petitioner for unauthorised absent (sic ''absence?) from duty and ultimately punished the petitioner, vide order dated 2.3.1998 imposing punishment of compulsory retirement.

(2.) EARLIER the writ petition for voluntary retirement (C.W.J.C. No. 4972/77) was dismissed by this Court against which one LP.A. No. 395/99 was preferred by the petitioner. Because of such pendency of the case and earlier when this case was taken up, it was adjourned.

(3.) IN view of such understanding given before this Court and observationsmade by the Division Bench on 9th March, 2000, the petitioner having given notice for voluntary retirement on 10th July, 1996, he will be deemed to have voluntarily retired on completion of three months notice period with effect from 10th October ' 96. Naresh Kumar Versus State Of Bihar