JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner, while serving as Dy. Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Jaipur, submitted an application under Rule 50 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, for seeking voluntary retirement on the ground of family circumstances and ill health on 5-12-2002. The application was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 15-2-2003. Hence, the present writ petition, challenging the order dated 15-2-2003 with the prayer for treating the petitioner having voluntarily retired from any appropriate date to be fixed by this Court. 2. While relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Manjushree Pathak v. Assam Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., 2000(4) SCT 306 SC : (2000)7 SCC 390 and this Court in the case of Usman Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1992(3) SCT 413 (Rajasthan) : 1991(1) WLC (Raj) 504 : 1991 Lab IC 2151 , learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of rejection is a non- speaking order and does not give any reason, whatsoever for rejecting the application of the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement. 3. While alleging certain mala fide against the Minister concerned, it has also been submitted that in view of unblemished service record of the petitioner there was no justification for refusing the petitioner voluntary retirement. It has been submitted that petitioner has sought voluntary retirement only for contesting the ensuing Assembly elections. 4. As per directions of this Court, learned Additional Government Advocate produced original record in the present case. A bare perusal of the record, so produced before the Court, would reveal that after receiving a preliminary enquiry report dated 14-9-2002, as submitted by the Joint Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Jaipur a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, for imposing major penalty, has already been proposed against the petitioner and the whole matter is under process with the concerned department. 5. In reply to the writ petition, mala fide so alleged against the Minister concerned have also been denied. 6. Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced here as under:- "50. Retirement on completion of 15 years qualifying service - (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. 6. Rule 50 of the Rules of 1996 is reproduced here as under:- "50. Retirement on completion of 15 years qualifying service - (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority : Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said notice." 7. Further guidelines for acceptance of notice have also been provided under the same Rules. The relevant guidelines are also reproduced hereunder:- "Guidelines for acceptance of notice - A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of (fifteen years) qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except that the Appointing Authority shall withhold permission to retire a Government servant : (i) Who is under suspension; (ii In whose case the 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." 8. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision taken by the Government of Rajasthan regard to acceptance of application for seeking voluntary retirement on the ground of contesting any election to Parliament/State Assembly/Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions. At the time of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision taken by the Government of Rajasthan regard to acceptance of application for seeking voluntary retirement on the ground of contesting any election to Parliament/State Assembly/Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions. The decision taken by the Government of Rajasthan is also reproduced hereunder : GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN'S DECISION "In case a Government servant seeks voluntary retirement under Rule 50(1) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, with a view to contest any election to Parliamentary/State Assembly/Municipalities/Panchayati Raj Institutions, he may be retired by the competent authority under Rule 50 of RCS (Pension) Rules, 1996 immediately without prejudice to the right of Government going into genuineness of the reasons and verification of the qualifying service rendered, and the period of notice prescribed under Rule 50(l) of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 shall in such cases be deemed to have been waived as a matter of course. (4) A Government servant, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be prejudiced from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority : Provided that the request for withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement." 9. As has already been referred above, after receiving a preliminary enquiry report way back in September, 2002 itself a departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules had already been proposed against the petitioner. As such as per the Guidelines issued under the Rules of 1996, the respondents were justified in refusing to accept the request of the petitioner. So far as other decisions of the Government of Rajasthan, as referred by counsel for the petitioner at the time of argument are concerned, the same may not be applicable in the present case since voluntary retirement was not sought on the ground of contesting any elections as referred above and the petitioner has clearly stated in his application dated 5-12-2002 that due to family circumstances and ill health his request for voluntary retirement may be accepted at the earliest. Even otherwise, in the matters of election the request could be rejected as per the guidelines referred to above. 10. Even otherwise, in the matters of election the request could be rejected as per the guidelines referred to above. 10. In view of the reply filed and record produced on behalf of the respondents and further the petitioner also having failed to produce any other cogent evidence, the mala fide as alleged can also not even be inferred in the present case. The Judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the peculiar acts and circumstances of the present case. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.Petition dismissed. *******