Dalveer Bhandari, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to quash the acceptance of Voluntary Retirement of the petitioner vide letter dated 1. 3. 1996 and alleged acceptance on 25. 1. 1996. It is further prayed that the respondent-Company or its agents, servants be restrained from giving effect to file note dated 1. 3. 1996 signed by respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed to the post of Vice President, Corporate Planning with posting at Delhi vide letter of appointment letter dated 28. 12. 1987 in the respondent-Company, a Government of India enterprise. The respondent introduced a voluntary Retirement Scheme for employees of public sector enterprise on 5. 10. 88 with clarification on 6. 1. 1989. ( 3 ) ON 29. 5. 1992, certain clarification were given with regard to the implementation of the Voluntary Retirement Scheme. ( 4 ) ON 25. 1. 1996, the petitioner had sent a handwritten letter to the Chairman and Managing Director of the respondent company and requested him for Voluntary Retirement under the Scheme. Letter dated 5. 1. 1996 reads as under : "confidential" january 25,1996 new Delhi. To Dr. K. K. K. Kutty CMD CMC Limited, New Delhi From: Ajit Mookerjee This is to confirm our discussion regarding my decision to accept VRS, effective March 16,1996, as per CMC s early retirement policy. We also agreed that effective immediately my location would be changed to Delhi and all such notices regarding recovery of market rent for company accommodation in Delhi and adjustment of vacation due, for being away from Calcutta on duty in Delhi, be withdrawn, so as not to have any adverse effect on my compen- sation and benefits. You also confirm that the ex-gratia payment for the eighth year of service would be prorated. I would like to request you to consider continuation of medical expense coverage for self and family. Thanks and regards, vrs accepted w. e. from sd/- March 16, 1996. In the report to HQ at Delhi. Continuation of medical expenses only as per our policy. sd/- 25. 1. 96 copy to Ajit. Received. sd/- 25. 1. I would like to request you to consider continuation of medical expense coverage for self and family. Thanks and regards, vrs accepted w. e. from sd/- March 16, 1996. In the report to HQ at Delhi. Continuation of medical expenses only as per our policy. sd/- 25. 1. 96 copy to Ajit. Received. sd/- 25. 1. 96" ( 5 ) IT is alleged that the C. M. D. of the respondent-Company without reference of the same to the Board of the respondent-Company made endorsement on the letter at the same time staling that VRS (Voluntary Retirement Scheme) was accepted w. e. f. 16. 3. 1996. It is alleged that on 26. 2. 1996, a news item appeared in the Economic Times that the Prime Minister s office is understood to have raised the retirement age of public sector employees from 56 to 60 and for that an official announcement was likely to be made soon. The said proposal has been recom- mended in the interim report of the Fifth Pay Commission and the Government is favourably inclined to accept the recommendation. ( 6 ) ON 28. 2. 1996, the petitioner addressed letters to the C. M. D. of the respon- dent-Company in which he had stated that if the decision of the Government of India as set out in the news item of 26. 2. 1996 was implemented, he would have another six years to serve and he wanted to withdraw the VRS option. The C. M. D. on the said letter gave a written remark saying "such urgent paper shall not be sent to my residence. I do not agree with the present request. " On 1st of March, 1996, the file note was prepared which was signed by respondent No. 2 stating that VRS application of the petitioner was accepted on 25. 1. 1996 and he would be relieved of his services on 16. 3. 1996. It is also mentioned that he should vacate the residential accommodation provided to him by 16. 3. 1996. The letter dated 1. 3. 1996 reads as under: "file NOTE MARCH 01,1996. Sub: VRS - Ajitmookerjee The VRS application submitted by Mr. Ajit Mookerjee was accepted on January 25, 1996. He will be relieved from services of CMC from the closing hours of March 16, 1996. His terminal benefits may be computed as per the existing Company s policies and procedures on VRS. 3. 1996 reads as under: "file NOTE MARCH 01,1996. Sub: VRS - Ajitmookerjee The VRS application submitted by Mr. Ajit Mookerjee was accepted on January 25, 1996. He will be relieved from services of CMC from the closing hours of March 16, 1996. His terminal benefits may be computed as per the existing Company s policies and procedures on VRS. Mr. Mookerjee should vacate the residential accommodation provided by the company; in Asian Games Village, New Delhi, by March 16, 1996. His dues should be settled after getting all the no due certificates, including vacation of residential accommodation provided by the Company. sd/- k. K. Krishnan Kutty; cc: Ajit Mookerjee cc: PKD/tsd/ac Parmar/hardeep Singh/hs Aneja" ( 7 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 1. 3. 1996 and has approached this Court that he may be permitted to withdraw his request for Voluntary Retirement w. e. f. 16. 3. 1996. The petition came up for admission hearing on 14. 3. 1996. This Court issued a short notice returnable on 21. 3. 1996. The Court directed that "status quo as of today to continue". ( 8 ) IN pursuance of notice, counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent had taken preliminary objection that the petitioner has suppressed material facts and has misled this Court. It is mentioned in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner vide letter dated 25. 1. 1996 sought Voluntary Retirement w. e. f. 16. 3. 1996 and that subsequently he intended to withdraw the said request of Voluntary Retirement and as such made a request by means of his letter dated 28. 2. 1996. The petitioner further mentioned in his petition that till 28. 2. 1996, the request for voluntary retirement was not accepted, and that he could withdraw the same before it became effective. He has relied upon his letter dated 25. 1. 1996 annexed to the writ petition for the said purpose and subsequently also placed another letter dated 28. 2. 1996, Annexure G to the writ. petition. The respondent has made serious grievance of the petitioner s not approaching this Court with clean hands. The respondent has mentioned that the petitioner did not place the full letter dated 25. 1. 1. 1996 annexed to the writ petition for the said purpose and subsequently also placed another letter dated 28. 2. 1996, Annexure G to the writ. petition. The respondent has made serious grievance of the petitioner s not approaching this Court with clean hands. The respondent has mentioned that the petitioner did not place the full letter dated 25. 1. 1996 and conveniently deleted endorsement of receipt of the order accepting his request for Voluntary Retirement and respondent has placed a photo copy of the original letter dated 25. 1. 1996 in the petitioner s own handwriting. Along with the order of acceptance of his request, seeking Voluntary Retirement and receipt of the same by the petitioner in his own hand on the same day has also been placed on the record. ( 9 ) ANOTHER grievance of the respondent is that the petitioner by means of letter dated 12. 3. 1996 in his own hand again approached respondent No. 2 requesting therein that the effective date of retirement as per order dated 25. 1. 1996 be extended from 16. 3. 1995 to 31. 5. 1996. It is further submitted that letter dated 25. 1. 1996 and 12. 3. 1996 are in the hands of the petitioner himself. Not only the said letter dated 12. 3. 1996 was delivered, but the petitioner had discussions at length with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 after full deliberation with the petitioner stated that it is not possible to have an extension. You should complete all the process before March 15,1996. "again, the petitioner addressed a letter to the C. M. D. The letter reads as under: to dr. K. K. K. Kutty c. M. D. C. M. C. Limited Reference our meeting last week. I would like to request you again to extend the effective date for my VRS to May 31, 1996 for personal reasons. I would like to avail part of my vacation to arrange my personal plans. I need your response today please. Thanking you, sd/- " ( 10 ) THE respondent has made serious grievance that this letter has been totally withheld from the Court and since the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the material facts from the Court, therefore, he is not entitled to any indulgence or relief from this Court. ( 11 ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. ( 11 ) A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the rejoinder affidavit it is mentioned that regarding the letter dated 25. 1. 1996, the words "received on 25. 1. 1996 was omitted by a typographical error. " It is further mentioned that its photo copy was not filed as the same was not very legible. It is further mentioned that in para 7 of the writ petition, it had been averred that "the handwritten endorsement on the same date at the time when the letter was handed over stating that the said VRS was accepted w. e. f. 16. 3. 1996. It is also mentioned that submission to the same effect was made in grounds I and 2 of the writ petition. It is mentioned that the petitioner did not deliberately conceal the contents of letter dated 25. 1. 1996 from this Court and the error has occurred due to oversight. The explanation given by the petitioner in the rejoinder regarding letter dated 12. 3. 1996 is indicated in para 6 of the rejoinder which reads as under : "with regard to letter of 12. 03. 1996 written by me, I say that the writ petition was filed on 13. 3. 1996 morning and heard on 14. 3. 1996 by this Hon ble Court. I say that since according to the Respondents, though not admitted by me, that the retirement would be effective from 16. 3. 1996, I was very apprehensive about losing my post, my social status and other benefits. I am a heart patient and was very upset about the state of affairs and the treatment meted out to me in the Respondent Company. I say that the letter of 12. 3. 1996 was written in a desperate effort to save the situation and avoid litigation, though I knew that nothing would come out of it. I reiterate that the writ petition was filed on the morning of 13th March, 1996. No reply was received on 13th morning. I deny that there was any discussion with the Respondent No. 2, much less any lengthy discussion either on 12th or 13th March, 1996. " ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the petition in a great hurry on 13. 3. 1996 and inadvertently the letter dated 12. I deny that there was any discussion with the Respondent No. 2, much less any lengthy discussion either on 12th or 13th March, 1996. " ( 12 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the petition in a great hurry on 13. 3. 1996 and inadvertently the letter dated 12. 3,1996 could not be placed on record: The petitioner in fact never intended to withhold any letter or information from the Court. It was sheer inadvertance on the part of the petitioner. ( 13 ) MR. Jaitley, learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as Balram Gupta v. Union of India and Another, AIR 1987 S. C. 2354. The facts of this case are almost similar to the facts of the present case. The ratio of this judgment is that the letter of resignation can be withdrawn any time before it becomes effective. In this case, the letter was to become effective from 16. 3. 1996. The short question which falls for determination in this case is whether the petitioner could withdraw the letter seeking voluntary retirement before it became effective i. e. (6. 3. 1996 ). In the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, the Court came to the conclusion that the appellant could withdraw the letter of resignation or retirement before it became effective. The Court observed in the concluding portion of the judgment which reads as under : "we hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withdrawing the permission by the respondent. We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in Government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one s future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The Court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the Government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees. " ( 14 ) SIMILAR view was taken in the case of Union of India v. Gopal Chand Misra, AIR 1978 S. C. 694. In the said case, Shri Satish Chandra wrote to the President of India on 7. 5. 1977 intimating his resignation from the office of Judge of the Allahabad High Court w. e. f. 1. 8. 77. On July 15,1977, he again wrote to the President revoking his earlier communication and commenced deciding matters in Court from July 16, 1977. The Allahabad High Court took the view that under Article 217 (1) Proviso (a) of the Constitution, the resignation was final and irrevocable and that the continuance of the said Shri Satish Chandra as a Judge of the High Court thereafter was a usurpation of public office. On appeal Supreme Court held that resigning office necessarily involved relinquishment of the office which implied cessation or termination of or cutting as under from the office. A complete and effective act of resigning office is one which severs the link of resignor with his office and terminates its tenure. In the context of Article 217 (1) this assumes the character of a decisive test because the expression "resign his office" occurs in a proviso which excepts or qualifies the substantive clause fixing the office tenure of a judge upto the age of 62 years. It was further reiterated that in the absence of a legal, contractual or constitutional bar, as intimation in writing sent to the appropriate authority by an incumbent, of his intention or proposal to resign his office/post, from a future specified date, can be withdrawn by him at any time before it becomes effective and this general rule equally applies to Government servant. Therefore, the law seems to be clear that the petitioner could withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement before it became effective. ( 15 ) MR. Rawal, learned Counsel for the respondent stranuously urged that this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. He submitted that the petitioner deliberately withheld letter dated 12. 3. Therefore, the law seems to be clear that the petitioner could withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement before it became effective. ( 15 ) MR. Rawal, learned Counsel for the respondent stranuously urged that this petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. He submitted that the petitioner deliberately withheld letter dated 12. 3. 1996 and he did not disclose the relevant portion of letter dated 25. 1. 1996 in the petition and deserves no indulgence from the Court. ( 16 ) MR. Rawal has placed reliance on Full Court judgment of this Court Harish Chand Shanna v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 1988 R. L. R. 34, and drawn my attention to para 15 where this Court has said that there should ordinarily be no stay of the order of retiring a person on attaining the normal age of superannuation. This case has no relevance as far as facts of the instant case are concerned. ( 17 ) AFTER hearing learned Counsel for the parties, now the crucial question of determining the operative portion of the judgment arises. Where on the one hand, the law declared by the Supreme Court is in favour of the petitioner and in law the petitioner could withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement before it became effective, on the other hand, the petitioner has committed a serious lapse of not placing the letter dated 12. 3. 1996 and complete contents of the application dated 25. 1. 1996 on record. At this juncture, it is extremely vital to arrive at the conclusion, whether the petitioner deliberately suppressed the material from the Court with a view to mislead the Court? In consideration of totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court would not like to hold that the petitioner is guilty of deliberate suppression of material facts from the Court and deserves no indulgence, but undoubtedly there has been a serious lapse on the part of the petitioner. ( 18 ) THEREFORE, in order to do complete justice to the petitioner and the respondent, I deem it appropriate that because of the serious lapse on the part of the petitioner, he must pay costs of Rs. l0,000. 00 to the respondent within two months. ( 19 ) IN view of the fact that legal position has been crystal clear, though while imposing costs of Rs. 10000. l0,000. 00 to the respondent within two months. ( 19 ) IN view of the fact that legal position has been crystal clear, though while imposing costs of Rs. 10000. 00 on the petitioner, this petition is allowed and the order accepting voluntary retirement of the petitioner vide letter dated 1. 3. 1996 and alleged acceptance of the same on 25. 3. 1996 are quashed. In other words, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the letter of voluntary retirement because the petitioner has withdrawn the same before it became effective, that is, 16. 3. 1996. Consequently, the petitioner shall continue to in service serve the respondent. The petition is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.