M. Katju, J.@mdashThis writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 23.2.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad vide Annexure-10 to the writ petition.
2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. 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 for 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.
4. After five days, a letter purported to be written on 15.3.2002 addressed to the General Manager, Telecom District Meerut and the Division Engineer (Phones), Baraut was sent through registered post on 19.3.2002 which was received in the office of the Petitioner on 20.3.2002 as stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition. Photocopy of the said letters are Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that the letter dated 15.3.2002 appears to have been ante-dated and these letters were sent through registered post on 19.3.2002. The Respondent No. 1 sent another letter dated 26.3.2002 which was replied by the Divisional Engineer by letter dated 3.4.2002 vide Annexure-6 to the writ petition. In this letter dated 3.4.2002, the Divisional Engineer stated that the request for voluntary retirement has already been accepted. The Respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 424 of 2002 which was disposed of by the Tribunal with the direction that his representation be decided vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition. Hence the General Manager (Telecom), Meerut decided the representation of the Respondent No. 1 on 21.6.2002 vide Annexure-8 to the writ petition. Aggrieved, the Respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal again which accepted his claim vide Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Hence, this writ petition.
5. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No. 1 and in paragraph 5 of the same, it is stated that the application of Respondent No. 1 for retirement was withdrawn before the date of retirement which was 30.6.2002. Hence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in
6. 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 dispatched on 19.3.2002, vide para 10 of the writ petition.
7. In paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, it has been mentioned that the retirement was to be given effect from 16.3.2002 but the withdrawal was given on 15.3.2002. This observation, in our opinion, is wholly arbitrary and baseless. The acceptance of the application for retirement of the Respondent No. 1 was on 15.3.2002 vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Even if we treat the letter dated 15.3.2002 of Respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-4 as not ante-dated, yet that letter itself states that charge was taken from the Respondent No. 1 on 15.3.2002.
8. On the facts of the case, it is evident that it was only after acceptance of his voluntary retirement on 15.3.2002 that the Respondent No. 1 wanted to withdraw his application for retirement. That cannot be allowed since his application had already been accepted.
9. In the circumstances, we quash the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 23.9.2002, Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
