C. K. THAKKAR, J. ( 1 ) RULE. Mr. D. A. Bambhania, learned Additional Government Pleader, waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. ( 2 ) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal dated May 24, 1995 in Appeal No. 301 of 1994 and by directing the respondent-authorities to pay pensionary dues and other benefits to the petitioner with effect from 1st March, 1994, treating the petitioner as voluntarily retired after office hours on February 28, 1994. ( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he joined services of the respondents in 1960 In 1991, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on account of personal problems He, however, withdraw that application. Again, he made an application in 1993, but it was not granted on the ground that a departmental enquiry was pending against him. In that enquiry, a minor punishment was imposed on him. By a notice, dated November 30, 1993, he sought voluntary retirement with effect from February 28, 1994, i. e. after completion of notice period of three months. It is his case that even though statutory period of three months was over, no decision was taken. Surprisingly, by an order dated march 28, 1994, the Unit Officer of the National Filaria Control Programme, Jamnagar, respondent No. 2 herein, intimated the petitioner that his application for voluntary retirement was not granted as Criminal Case No. 163 of 1993 was pending against him. The petitioner, therefore, was called upon to resume duty within a period of three days from the date of the order. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved by the order passed by the second respondent, the petitioner approached the Gujarat Civil Services Tribunal by filing Appeal No. 301 of 1994. The tribunal, however, by a judgment and order, dated May 24, 1995, dismissed the appeal. It is against that decision that the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) VARIOUS contentions were raised by Mr. D. M. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. The tribunal, however, by a judgment and order, dated May 24, 1995, dismissed the appeal. It is against that decision that the petitioner has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) VARIOUS contentions were raised by Mr. D. M. Thakkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. It was submitted that under Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "bcsr"), a Government servant may give notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority and may seek voluntary retirement from service in certain circumstances. Placing reliance on Government resolution dated February 3, 1978, issued by the Finance Department, it was argued that if the competent authority does not reject an application for voluntary retirement within the prescribed period, it would be deemed to have been accepted by the authority and the government servant would automatically be retired. The relevant Clause 7 (KH) reads thus: ( 6 ) MR. Thakkar contended that notice period for voluntary retirement is three months under Rule 161 or BCSR. He conceded that BCSR does not provide for automatic acceptance of application for voluntary retirement. At the same time, it does not provide for rejection of application either. The counsel, therefore, submitted that in absence of clear provision either one way or the other in BCSR, a resolution has been issued providing a period of three months within which an application for voluntary retirement submitted by a government servant can be rejected. If that application is not rejected within the stipulated period, it will be deemed to have been granted and retirement will become effective. ( 7 ) SO far as the proposition of law is concerned, there cannot be two opinions. It is settled law that administrative instructions cannot run counter to Rules and cannot be inconsistent with statutory provisions. But, if there is a gap in statutory rules, such gap can always be filled in by issuing administrative instructions. It has been done by the state Government by issuing Resolution on February 3, 1978. It provides that where a criminal case or departmental inquiry against a Government servant is pending or is contemplated, the authority may take appropriate decision in the manner laid down in the resolution before the notice period is over. It has been done by the state Government by issuing Resolution on February 3, 1978. It provides that where a criminal case or departmental inquiry against a Government servant is pending or is contemplated, the authority may take appropriate decision in the manner laid down in the resolution before the notice period is over. If no decision is taken by the authority during the stipulated period, a Government servant who has given notice for voluntary retirement is deemed to have retired. In the instant case, according to the petitioner, notice for voluntary retirement was given by him on November 30, 1993. It was, therefore, incumbent on the part of the authorities, according to Mr. Thakkar to reject that application within the outer limit of three months. But when it has not rejected upto february 28, 1994, it was deemed to have been granted and the petitioner stood retired after office hours on February 28, 1994. ( 8 ) AT the first blush, the submission appears to be attractive, but on close scrutiny, it has no legs to stand and cannot be upheld. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to rule 161 of BCSR. The material part thereof reads as under :". . . 161. ( 8 ) AT the first blush, the submission appears to be attractive, but on close scrutiny, it has no legs to stand and cannot be upheld. In this connection, it is necessary to refer to rule 161 of BCSR. The material part thereof reads as under :". . . 161. (1) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (aa) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), (i) An appointing Authority shall, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months pay and allowances in lieu of such notice : xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (ii) any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies may, by giving notice of not less than three months, in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of 50 years, if he is in Class I or Class II service or post or in any unclassified gazetted post, the age limit for the purpose of recruitment to which is below 35 years and in any other case, after he has attained the age of 55 years : provided that it shall be open to the Appointing Authority to with hold permission to retire to a Government servant who is under suspension, or against whom Departmental proceedings are pending or contemplated and who seeks to retire under this sub-clause. . . . " (emphasis supplied) ( 9 ) THE State Government has framed statutory rules in exercise of the power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, read with sub-section (6) of Sec. 81 of the Bombay Reorganization Act, 1960, known as "the Gujarat Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1971" (hereinafter referred to as "the Conduct Rules" ). Rule 18 is material for resolving the controversy raised in the present petition. That rule reads thus:. . . 18. Government servant to inform Government about Criminal or civil proceedings against him. Rule 18 is material for resolving the controversy raised in the present petition. That rule reads thus:. . . 18. Government servant to inform Government about Criminal or civil proceedings against him. (a) Whereas any criminal proceedings are instituted or are in progress against a Government servant concerning an offence which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or which involves moral turpitude or which is punishable with imprisonment for a term of one year or more, or (b) Where any civil proceedings are instituted or are in progress against a government servant for recovery of an amount exceeding ten times his monthly emoluments or for damages arising out of any breach of trust or misappropriation of money or fraud alleged to have been committed by such Government servant, the Government servant shall inform government or the Head of the Department or Office concerned about such proceedings by submitting a report in writing stating briefly the facts leading to such proceedings. . . . " ( 10 ) FROM the above rule, it is abundantly clear that it enjoins a Government servant to inform the Government or the Head of the Department or the office concerned about criminal proceedings instituted or are in progress against him concerning an offence which is alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty. Likewise, it is incumbent on him to inform the Government or the Head of the Department or office concerned regarding civil proceedings instituted or are in progress against him for recovery of an amount exceeding ten times his monthly emoluments or for damages arising out of breach of trust, or misappropriation of money, or fraud alleged to have been committed by him. Such intimation under the Conduct rules must be sent to the Government or the Head of the Department or Office concerned in writing. ( 11 ) NOW when the petitioner gave notice Annexure a for voluntary retirement on november 30, 1993, in accordance with rule 161 of BCSR, he has not stated that no criminal proceedings were instituted against him though a criminal case for misappropriation and cheating was filed against him and was pending. ( 11 ) NOW when the petitioner gave notice Annexure a for voluntary retirement on november 30, 1993, in accordance with rule 161 of BCSR, he has not stated that no criminal proceedings were instituted against him though a criminal case for misappropriation and cheating was filed against him and was pending. It is also clearly stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Administrative Officer of the first respondent that the petitioner had obtained anticipatory bail in connection with the said incident. In the application for voluntary retirement the petitioner has only stated that no departmental inquiry was pending against him. It is thus clear that the petitioner has suppressed a material fact regarding pendency of criminal case against him. He ought to have stated in that application that though on the date of making the application, no departmental enquiry was pending against him, a criminal case was registered against him, being criminal Case No. 169 of 1993, and it was pending in a competent court of law. ( 12 ) NOW, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, the resultant effect would be that the provisions of rule 161 of BCSR read with rule 18 of the Conduct Rules, will become nugatory and the object underlying those provisions will be defeated and frustrated. The Court cannot ignore statutory/provisions and if a duty is cast on a government servant to inform about pendency of a criminal case and/or civil proceeding, the Court cannot, keeping aside the object of informing the Government about pendency of proceedings, read administrative instructions nullifying the Rules. ( 13 ) IN my judgment, the administrative instructions contained in Government resolution dated February 3, 1978 must be read so as to give effect to the Statutory rules, i. e. Rule 161 of BCSR and Rule 18 of the Conduct Rules. ( 13 ) IN my judgment, the administrative instructions contained in Government resolution dated February 3, 1978 must be read so as to give effect to the Statutory rules, i. e. Rule 161 of BCSR and Rule 18 of the Conduct Rules. In my considered opinion, reading statutory Rules and Government Resolution, the provision must be so read that if no criminal case or civil proceeding is pending and a Government servant has issued notice for voluntary retirement in accordance with rule 161 of BCSR and no decision is taken within the stipulated period as laid down in Government Resolution dated February 3, 1978, Clause 7 (KH) will operate and the Government servant, who has given a notice in writing, against whom no proceedings, civil or criminal, are pending, will stand retired voluntarily after expiry of prescribed period of three months. Thereafter, it is not open to the authorities to reject that application but, if criminal case and/or civil proceeding is pending, under rule 161 of BCSR read with Rule 18 of the conduct Rules, an employee has to inform the Government or the Head of the department or the Office concerned about the pendency of such proceeding and if that fact is suppressed or is not disclosed, Government Resolution dated February 3, 1978 will not operate and it is only when the said fact is communicated to the Government, head of the Department or the Office concerned by an employee that the authority will decide as to whether the application should be accepted or be withheld. It is only thereafter that the Resolution, dated February 3, 1978 will operate. In absence of such information, Clause 7 (KH) will not come into play. ( 14 ) MR. Thakkar, no doubt, contended that a complaint is filed by a private party and there is no substance in the allegations levelled against the petitioner. He also stated that stay is granted against further proceedings in that case and taking into account the nature of allegations also, this is not a fit case in which the Government may exercise power of withholding of application and not granting prayer for voluntary retirement made by the petitioner. I may clarify that I am not expressing any opinion on that aspect. I may clarify that I am not expressing any opinion on that aspect. In spite of pendency of proceeding against an employee, it is open to the Government, Head of the department or Office concerned to accept application for voluntary retirement and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, an authority can pass an appropriate order. It is always open to an aggrieved party to approach a court of law if the order is otherwise illegal, unlawful or arbitrary. But, in view of pendency of criminal case and /or civil proceeding, the case does not fall within the mischief of Clause 7 (KH) of the government Resolution dated February 3, 1978. Hence, in my opinion, the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 2 on March 28, 1994 cannot be said to be unlawful or illegal. ( 15 ) MY attention was invited by the learned counsel for the petitioner to a decision of the Honourable Supreme Court of India in B. J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. , AIR 1978 SC 1109 . In that case, the Honourable Supreme Court held that an absolute right is conferred on the Government servant under Rule 161 (1) (aa) (ii) to retire by giving not less than three months notice on his attaining the prescribed age. Such a right is, however, subject to the proviso thereto, under which it is open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire a Government servant in certain circumstances. Their lordships observed that it is incumbent on the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire on one of the conditions laid down in the proviso, but such action must be taken within the stipulated period. If it is not taken, the Government servant will retire after completion of three months. The principle in B. J. Shelats case (supra) was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, reported in air 1995 SC 176 . In my opinion, the above cases do not assist the petitioner in any manner. Reading the statutory provisions under BCSR and the Conduct Rules, it is obligatory on the Government servant to inform the Government, Head of the Department or Office concerned regarding institution of a criminal case or pendency of civil proceeding. In my opinion, the above cases do not assist the petitioner in any manner. Reading the statutory provisions under BCSR and the Conduct Rules, it is obligatory on the Government servant to inform the Government, Head of the Department or Office concerned regarding institution of a criminal case or pendency of civil proceeding. If it is incumbent on his part to inform the authority and the authority is not informed, Resolution dated February 3, 1978 cannot be pressed in service and no benefits flow therefrom. Hence, I do not see any substance even in that ground. ( 16 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I find no substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. .