R.S. VERMA, J.—The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows: The petitioner entered into service on 11-2-56 as a Foot Constable under the respondents. By 20-7-81 he had completed 20 years of qualifying service and had also attained 45 years and thus had become eligible to seek voluntary retirement on a proper notice being served on the appointing authority. Such a notice was served by him on 20-7-81 and the term of the notice expired on 20-10-81. However, it appears that prior to such notice the petitioner was tried for criminal offence by the Special Judge, Anticorruption Department, Jaipur. During the course of this trial, the petitioner was placed under suspension. The petitioner was acquitted by the Special Judge on 21-2-77. Consequently, he was reinstated by order dated 12/13-4-77 (Ex. 1). The petitioner joined the duties in pursuance of the said order. The State filed an appeal against the order of acquittal of the petitioner. This appeal was dismissed on 22-11-78 as would be evident from the recital made by the D.I.G., Bikaner in Ex. 9 (see page 46 of the paper book). 2. It appears that after the petitioner had resumed his duty, he fell ill on 9-8-78. He sought leave and the same was granted and was extended from time to time. He was ordered to be examined by medical board on 24-1-81. The medical board found him unfit for duty and hence the petitioner could not resume his duty. Re-call letters were sent to the petitioner and the last of such letters was sent on 18-2-82 but the petitioner did not join his duty. Upon this, the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar initiated disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for willful absence from duty. The Disciplinary Authority found that the petitioner had absented himself from duty since 26-12-79 and he failed to join duties inspite of the re-call letter dated 18-12-82. Upon such findings, the Disciplinary Authority ordered discharge of the petitioner from service vide Ex. 4. The petitioner went in appeal to D.I.G., Bikaner, who set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authority on the ground that the same was against law. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar passed another order Ex. 7, whereby he ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service. Once again the petitioner went in appeal before the D.I.G. Bikaner. The D.I.G. by order Ex. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police, Sri Ganganagar passed another order Ex. 7, whereby he ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service. Once again the petitioner went in appeal before the D.I.G. Bikaner. The D.I.G. by order Ex. 9 modified the order of dismissal of the petitioner and ordered compulsory retirement of the petitioner with effect from 28-6 84. By the present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the validity of the aforesaid orders and submits that once the petitioner had given notice for voluntary retirement and the period of notice had expired, the petitioner automatically stood retired with effect from 20-10-81, inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority did not comply with the provisions of section 244 (1) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). It was averred that on the admitted facts of the case, the petitioner could not have resumed duties unless a fitness certificate was issued to him. The medical board had found him unfit for continuing in service. In absence of that certificate, the only alternative remedy to the petitioner was to seek voluntary retirement as he had already completed 20 years of service. The procedure prescribed under rule 244 (1) of the Rules was mandatory and since the provisions of that rule were not fulfilled, the petitioners notice became effective and, therefore, no departmental proceedings could have been taken against the petitioner after he had already retired from service with effect from 20-10-81. Upon such pleas, the petitioner claimed settlement of his post retirement claims with effect from 20-10-81. 3. The writ petition has been opposed on behalf of the respondents. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the provisions of Rule 244 (1) of the Rules are merely directive and in this case, a substantial compliance of the Rules has been made, inasmuch as the petitioner himself admitted in his memo of appeal Ex. 8 that his application for voluntary retirement had been dismissed. It is submitted that it was not necs-ssary for the Superintendent of Police to communicate to the Petitioner in writing the fact of refusal of his application, when such fact was already within the knowledge of the petitioner. 4. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate further contends that the petitioner having participated in the disciplinary proceeding is estopped from claiming that he stood retired with effect from 20-10-81. 5. 4. The learned Dy. Govt. Advocate further contends that the petitioner having participated in the disciplinary proceeding is estopped from claiming that he stood retired with effect from 20-10-81. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there can be no estoppel against law and the provisions of rule 244(1) of the Rules being mandatory, the Disciplinary Authority was bound to comply with them. It is submitted that it was under ignorance of law that the petitioner participated in the disciplinary proceedings but such participation would not render ineffective his retirement which followed as the natural consequence from the notice given on 20-7-81, particularly when on that day no disciplinary proceedings were pending against him and the criminal trial had also come to an end prior to that date. 6. I have Considered the rival contentions. As already stated the facts in this case are not much in dispute. On the date the petitioner served notice for voluntary retirement, he was not facing any criminal trial at all and the criminal appeal filed by the State had been dismissed as back as 22-11-78. On 20-7-81, when the petitioner served his notice for voluntary retirement, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, nor at that stage any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner, though re-call letters had been sent to him to resume duties. It is not disputed that the petitioner had been declared unfit for government job by a medical board which had been constituted on 20-10-81. It is in this background that I have to examine the contentions of the two sides. 7. Relevant part of Rule 244 (1) of the Rules reads as follows:- "244 (1). It is not disputed that the petitioner had been declared unfit for government job by a medical board which had been constituted on 20-10-81. It is in this background that I have to examine the contentions of the two sides. 7. Relevant part of Rule 244 (1) of the Rules reads as follows:- "244 (1). Optional Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service-(a) A Government servant may, after giving atleast 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years of qualifying service or attains the age of 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice:" Provided that it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to withhold permission to retire a Government servant: (i) who is under suspension; (ii) in whose case disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case is of the view that such disciplinary proceedings might result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service; (iii) in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law; (b) A Government servant who has given notice for seeking retirement under clause (1) of this sub-rule, may presume acceptance of the notice of retirement and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice automatically unless an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the Competent Authority and served upon the Government servant before the expiry of the period of the notice." Under the proviso to the aforesaid Rules, it was open to the Appointing Authority to with-hold permission to the petitioner only if the petitioner was under suspension or disciplinary proceedings were pending against him or were contemplated for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority having regard to the circumstances of the case, was of the view that such disciplinary proceeding may result in imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service or in case a prosecution was contemplated or may have been launched against the petitioner in a court of law. In the present case, none of the aforesaid circumstances existed. The prosecution against the petitioner had already come to an end. In the present case, none of the aforesaid circumstances existed. The prosecution against the petitioner had already come to an end. Neither disciplinary proceedings were pending on the date the petitioner served his notice nor they were contemplated till that day. In such circumstances, the petitioners notice to retire automatically took effect on its expiry. The law did not contemplate refusal of the notice of the petitioner when the aforesaid conditions were not fulfilled. 8. There is yet another angle from which the matter may be viewed. The proviso to Rule 244 (1) (a) lays down jurisdictional requisites, which are required to be fulfilled before the disciplinary authority could refuse permission to a government servant, who has given the notice required by Rule 244 (1) (a). To my mind, existence of conditions enumerated in this proviso, is a condition precedent before which permission to retire may be refused. Thus, when none of the conditions existed, the appointing authority could not have with held permission to the petitioner and hence if any order was passed by the disciplinary authority, it was void, nonest and non-existent in law. To my mind, there could be no estoppel against an order, which was void ab-initio. 9. It does appear that the petitioners application for voluntary retirement was dismissed as is mentioned in Ex. 8 at internal page 4 but there is nothing on record to show that such refusal was conveyed to the petitioner in terms of clause 244 (1) (b) of the Rules. To prevent a notice of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from being effective, two requirements were to be fulfil-led; (i) an order in writing to the contrary had to be issued, (ii) such an order in writing was required to be served upon the petitioner before expiry of the period of notice. There is nothing on record to show that these two requirements; were fulfilled in this case. When it is so, the notice of the petitioner became effective automatically and he stood retired with effect from 21-10-81. The expression "and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice automa- tically unless an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the compe- tent authority and has been served upon the government servant before the expiry of the period of notice "indoubtedly goes to show that the provision is mandatory and not merely directory. The expression "and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice automa- tically unless an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the compe- tent authority and has been served upon the government servant before the expiry of the period of notice "indoubtedly goes to show that the provision is mandatory and not merely directory. Hence, compliance with these provisions was a sine-qua non for preclusion of the notice of petitioner from being effective. Since, these conditions were not complied with, the notice of the petitioner did become effective with effect from 20.10.81. 10. To my mind, there cannot be any estoppel against the statute. The Rajasthan Service Rules are statutory rules framed by the Governor in exercise of powers vested in it by Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the petitioners participation in the disciplinary proceedings held long after his retirement could not nullify the factum of retirement which had already come into force on 20.10.81. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were altogether bad in law and are quashed. All orders passed in consequence of such disciplinary enquiry are also quashed. It is declared that the petitioner stood retired with effect from. 21.10.81. The respondents are directed to settle the pension case of the petitioner on this basis. He shall be paid his entire arrears of pension and other post retiral benefits within a period of three months from today along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.