Rajendra Singh v. Additional Director General of Police, Uttaranchal & Ors.

erroneous. The first proviso to Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book contemplates that there has to be an order of the appointing authority permitting the government servant to retire forthwith. The second proviso to Rule 56 clearly 5 indicates the application for voluntary retirement can only be made effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority in the case where disciplinary proceedings are pending against the delinquent servant. The third proviso to the said Rule indicates that an application voluntary retirement of a government servant cannot be withdrawn by the government servant except with the permission of the appointing authority. From a reading of Rule 56 of the Financial Handbook, it is apparently clear and explicit that an application for voluntary retirement can be filed by a government servant. The period of such notice is three months but it does not mean that after the expiry of three months, the application voluntary retirement is deemed to be accepted. Retirement of a person can only be made effective once an explicit order in writing is issued by the appointing authority. In the light of the aforesaid, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. In so far as the second submission concerned that the charge sheet does not specify the dates of unauthorized absence, the charge sheet dated 5th January, 2000 indicates that the petitioner had remained on unauthorized leave since 12th July, 1999 onwards. It has come on record that the petitioner joined his duties on 29th 6 January, 2000 and consequently the entire period was taken into consideration while issuing the order of dismissal. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on this ground also fails. In so far as the last submission is concerned, the averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ petition cannot be into consideration. Paragraph 11 of the writ petition has been sworn on the basis of record. Such relevant records to show that the petitioner was not permitted to cross- examine the witness or that he was not permitted to produce his evidence in his defence has not been brought on record. On the other hand, the enquiry report clearly indicates that the petitioner declined to cross-examine the witnesses. In the light of the aforesaid, the Court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. However, before parting, the Court felt that the order of dismissal did not commensurate with the misconduct in the given circumstances, as during the period when the petitioner was absent, his son had died on 3rd October, 1999, and in this regard, had submitted the death certificate, medical reports, etc. to the enquiry officer as well as before the appointing authority. The order of dismissal does not consider this aspect and accordingly the learned Standing Counsel was asked to explain the extenuating circumstances which 7 dismissal of the petitioner by the impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel pointed out that this question was raised before the appellate authority who considered the matter and found that the past record of the petitioner indicated that he was a habitual absentee and at many times his unauthorized leave was converted without pay. The past record also suggested that petitioner was punished various misconduct. In view of the aforesaid, the Court finds that it is not a fit case where the Court should interfere in the order of dismissal passed by the competent authority. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. 5th July, 2012 Rajni (Tarun Agarwala, J.)