http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: DR. BALJIT SINGH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF HARYANA

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/12/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgment of the Division  Bench of  the Punjab  and Haryana  High Court, made in Civil Writ Petition No.12167/94, on May 8, 1995.      The  petitioner   while  working   as  H.C.M.S.-II  had tendered his  voluntary retirement  expressing his intention that he  may be  prematurely retired  under Rule 5.32 (B) of Punjab Civil  Services Rules  (for short, ’the Rules’) under which a  government  servant  is  given  liberty  to  tender voluntary retirement  by given notice of not less than three months. Accordingly,  on September 20,1993, he had given the notice. On  his own  showing, he  handed over  the charge on February 11,  1994  even  without  acceptance  of  voluntary retirement. Thereafter,  the authority  by proceedings dated February 25, 1994 declined to accept his retirement which he challenged in  the High  Court. The  High Court  refused  to interfere with the order passed by the Government.      It is  as admitted position that prosecution aginst the petitioner for  offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 209,  406 I.P.C.  etc. is pending trial in the Court of the Add. District Judge, Gurgaon. Under those circumstances, the Government  declined to  permit the petitioner to retire voluntarily from  service. It  is contended  by Shri  Jasbir Malik, learned  counsel for  the petitioner,  the under  the aforesaid Rule  he is  entitled to retire; due to his family circumstances he  tendered hie  resignation;  on  expiry  of three  months’   notice  the   petitioner  is   entitled  to relinquish his  office; the  Government has no option but to accept his  voluntary retirement.  In  support  thereof,  he placed reliance  on the  judgment of  this Court in Union of India v.  Sayed Muzaffar  Mir  [19995  supp.  (1)  SCC  76]. Therein, while  the respondent  was under suspension pending enquiry, he  tendered his  voluntary retirement  on July 22, 1985 under  Rule 1802(b) of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The  period of three months had expired on October 21, 1985. The  order  of  removal  was  passed  against  him  on November 4,  1985. Under  those circumstances,  the Tribunal held that  he was  entitled to  retire from  service and the order of  removal should,  therefore, be treated as non est. In those  circumstances, this  Court appeaars to have upheld

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

the contention  of the  respondent and the view taken by the Tribunal. But  in this  case it  is seen  that when  serious offences are  pending trial,  it is  open to the appropriate Government to decide whether or not the delinquent should be permitted to  retire voluntarily or such disciplinary action as is  available should  be taken  under the law. Therefore, mere expiry of three months period of notice given, does not automatically put  an end  to jural relationship of employer and employee between Government and the delinquent official. Only on acceptance by the employer of resignation or request for voluntary retirement their jural relationship ceases. It would, therefore,  be of necessity that the Government takes appropriate  decision   whether  the   delinquent  would  be permitted to  retire voluntarily  from service  pending  the action against  him. In this case since serious offences are pending  trial  against  him  the  Government  have  rightly refused to  permit trial  against him,  the Government  have rightly refused  to permit  him to  retire voluntarily  from service. The ration in the above judgment has no application to the  fact situation and cannot be applied/extended to all the situations.  Each case  should be  considered in its own backdrop of facts. Until the jural relations of employer and employee comes  to a  close according  to law,  the employer always has power to decide and pass appropriate order.      It is  seen in the service jurisprudence that before an incumbent  attains   superannuation  while   an  enquiry  is contemplated against  him, it  may be open to the Government to postpone  the superannuation  for continuance  of pending discipliner proceeding for completing enquiry or to initiate action against  a delinquent  employee.  When  such  is  the situation, it  will always  be open  to  the  Government  to decide whether  or not to permit an incumbent to retire from service. It  is then  contended by  the learned counsel that when the  petitioner had  handed over  the charge  which was accepted  by  the  officers,  there  is  no  scope  for  the Government to  refuse acceptance of the resignation. We find no force  in the  contention. if  the  contention  is  given acceptance, it  would lead  to deleterious consequences. For instance, if  a public  servant commits  misappropriation of funds of the Government, and after tendering his resignation and  handing   over  the   charge  walks  away  with  booty. Acceptance  of   such  contention   would  lead  to  serious repercussions and  consequences flowing  therefrom would  be disastrous to  maintain discipline  in service.  Under these circumstances, until  the acceptance or rejection of request for voluntary  retirement is communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner  is required  to remain  in  office  and  his handing over  the charge  without any order of the competent authority  and  acceptance  of  his  request  for  voluntary retirement have no result.      The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.