JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is a doctor by profession. She had joined the State service on 2.2.1976. Her date of birth is 11.12.1948. It is admitted case of the petitioner that she had completed 21 years of qualifying service and was of the age of 45 years and had sought voluntary retirement from her service and submitted the application on 13.2.1996, copy of which is attached as Annexure-1. She had sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.9.1996. Vide another application moved on 13.6.1996, she wanted to prepone the voluntary retirement to 1.8.1996. Her case was recommended by the Chief Medical & Health Officer, Alwar vide letter Annexure-3 dated 15.7.1996 for taking necessary action. It is the case of the respondents that on 17.6.1996 the Director, Health Services, Rajasthan, had forwarded a charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations to the Deputy Secretary, Medical and Health Department for initiating disciplinary enquiry against the petitioners under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 on the alleged allegation that she had been running private clinic while in Government service, which charge-sheet was based on a preliminary enquiry report. Copy of such letter dated 17.6.1996 is attached as Annexures R/1, R/2 and R/13. It is the case of the respondents that for the reason that a departmental enquiry was contemplated and after acquiring the knowledge that such enquiry may involve the petitioner in severe punishment, it is stated that she had moved the said application only to avoid the departmental enquiry. 2. The request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was rejected vide letter Annexure-4 dated 6.8.1996 on the ground that an enquiry is contemplated against her. It is admitted that right upto 6.8.1996, no charge-sheet had been issued,but the matter was under contemplation. Even though the petitioner had been communicated that a departmental enquiry is pending against her, it is stated in the written statement that the word 'pendency' has been mentioned by mistake whereas it should have been 'contemplated'. Repeated requests of the petitioner for voluntary retirement were rejected. The petitioner was again informed vide Annexure-10 dated 5.4.1997 of the rejection of her application seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.5.1997 which application was submitted by the petitioner when her earlier application had not brought any fruits. 3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's application was in consonance with Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. The petitioner was again informed vide Annexure-10 dated 5.4.1997 of the rejection of her application seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 1.5.1997 which application was submitted by the petitioner when her earlier application had not brought any fruits. 3. The petitioner submits that the petitioner's application was in consonance with Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules. It is the case of the petitioner that no charge-sheet had ever been received by the petitioner even though it is stated in the written statement that the charge-sheet was sent through registered post on 19.9.1997 and stands acknowledged vide Annexure 4, 5 and 6. 4. An additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioner dated 26.3.1999 to the effect that the petitioner has not been informed even upto that date in regard to the fact as to who is the Enquiry Officer, holding the enquiry officer, holding the equiry, nor any date has been fixed by the enquiry officer, meaning thereby, the petitioner wants to submit that the enquiry proceedings except the issuance of the charge-sheet, have not been initiated. 5. Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules enables the Government servant to apply for compulsory (sic voluntary) retirement on completion of 20 years of qualifying service or on attaining the age of 45 years which ever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. However, it enables the appointing authority to with-hold permission to retire a Government servant, who is under suspension or in whose case any disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated for imposition of a major penalty, which may result in imposition of penalty of removal or dismissal or in whose case prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a court of law. The rule 244(1) reads as under: 244(1). The rule 244(1) reads as under: 244(1). Optional Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service- (1) A Government servant may, after giving at least 3 months' previous notice in writing to the Appointment 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 with hold 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 had; 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.' 6. The parties rely on three judgments in the case of Kan Mal Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WLC (Raj.) 1998 page 256 , Chiranji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. RLR 1991(1) Page 693 and Usman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan 1991(1) RLR 723=1991(1) RLW 158 . 7. In the case of Kan Mal Bohra Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) , the application for retirement was made on 11.6.1986 and on that very date i.e. 11.6.1986 charge-sheet had been issued and an enquiry officer was appointed. Request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was rejected because of the provisions of Rule 244. It was held that no illegality has been committed by the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to retire voluntarily because of the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings on the date when the application was made. 8. In the case of Usman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) , voluntary retirement was sought on 20.7.1981, which notice of retirement was to expire on 20.10.1981. 8. In the case of Usman Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) , voluntary retirement was sought on 20.7.1981, which notice of retirement was to expire on 20.10.1981. It was held that on 20.7.1981 when the petitioner had served the notice for voluntary retirement, no disciplinary proceedings were pending against the petitioner, nor at that stage any disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the petitioner. It was held by this court that to prevent a notice of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from being effective, two requirements were to be fulfilled; (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, and when it is so, the notice of the petitioner became effective automatically and the petitioner stood retired. 9. In the case in Chiranji Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) , it was held that the retirement of the petitioner became effective automatically after lapse of period of three months and no charge-sheet could be issued after the period of three months. Rule 244(1) prescribes the notice period to be three months. It was held that the notice of retirement becomes automatically applicable after the lapse of three months. 10. From the above-said facts, it is very dear that at the time when the petitioner had sought voluntary retirement in February 1996, there was no pendency of any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Three months period is mandatory period. Even though the petitioner had mentioned that she should be retired in the month of September, but lateron changed her position for August 1996. The petitioner was entitled to be retired after 3 months notice. Even though it is true that if any disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated at the time when the application for voluntary retirement is made the authority may not retire the officials, but in the present case, there were no contemplated proceedings right up to June 1996 and it was only in July 1996 that the Director had written a letter to the Government for issuance of the charge-sheet to the petitioner. Except for issuance of the charge-sheet, it has not been brought on record that for last more than two and half years what action has been taken on the said charge-sheet. Except for issuance of the charge-sheet, it has not been brought on record that for last more than two and half years what action has been taken on the said charge-sheet. The petitioner has filed a specific affidavit to the effect that after receipt of the charge-sheet in August 1996, she has not received any intimation in regard to the proceedings of the enquiry or even for appointment of the enquiry officer. The allegations levelled against the petitioner, after receipt of the notice of voluntary retirement, were that she was doing her private practice as well while in Government service. Even after issuance of the charge-sheet the respondent had not taken any effective steps, in that situation, it cannot be said that the respondent is acting bona fidely in not acceeding the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. The petitioner was entitled to be voluntarily retired after three months of the notice even though she had given six months notice which was reduced by her by preponding it to August 1996. 11. In the peculiar circumstances of the case and for the reason and relying on the judgment of Chiranji Lal (supra), it is a fit case where the request of the petitioner is to be accepted for voluntary retirement, from the date when she had last worked in the office as per her notice of voluntary retirement of February 1996 and the impugned orders Annexures 4, 7 and 10 dated 6.8.1996, 18.1.1997 and 5.4.1997 are quashed and she is deemed to have been retired as per her notice Annexure-1 and in case she has actually worked after 1.9.1996 and has rendered any duty, she would only be entitled to emoluments of actual working in the office and in case she has not worked in the office, she would not be entitled to emoluments from the period 1.9.1996. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the retiral benefits like pension, provident fund, gratuity etc. on the basis of voluntary retirement, as mentioned above. The writ petition is allowed with the above-said observations. Petition Allowed. *******