Judgment :- In W.P.No.2518 of 2003, the petitioner seeks for a Mandamus to direct the respondents to relieve the petitioner from the services of the Electricity Board/respondents from 5.8.2002 in terms of the proceedings of the respondent dated 16.5.2002. 2. In W.P.No.2681 of 2003, the petitioner seeks for a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the charge memo dated 23.12.2002 and quash the same. 3. The following facts are sufficient for the disposal of both the writ petitions:- The petitioner was working as an Accounts Supervisor in the respondents/Board. As he has put in more than 25 years of service, he sought for voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and by his letter dated 30.4.2002, expressed his desire to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from 5.8.2002. The said letter was duly acknowledged by the respondents by their letter dated 16.5.2002 in which, the first respondent has stated that in the event of any disciplinary proceedings being initiated against the petitioner on or before 5.8.2002 (the date indicated by the petitioner as the date of voluntary retirement), then the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement will not be accepted. 4. Though no disciplinary proceedings were instituted against the petitioner on or before 5.8.2002, the petitioner was not allowed to be retired. Therefore, the petitioner has addressed letters on 1.9.2002, 11.10.2002 and 16.12.2002 reminding the respondents about his request of voluntary retirement and the failure on the part of the respondents to permit the petitioner to go on retirement. 5. However, surprisingly he received a charge memo dated 23.12.2002 framing two charges against him. Both the charges relate to alleged violation of regulation 19 (VII) of the Regulations, namely, that the petitioner was indulging in private contract and hence, acting against the interest of the Electricity Board. With the result, the petitioner has come forward with the above two writ petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the letter dated 30.4.2002 seeking for voluntary retirement with effect from 5.8.2002 and the letter of acknowledgement by the respondents dated 16.5.2002. Reference was also made to the subsequent three reminders dated 1.9.2002, 11.10.2002 and 16.12.2002. With the result, the petitioner has come forward with the above two writ petitions. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the letter dated 30.4.2002 seeking for voluntary retirement with effect from 5.8.2002 and the letter of acknowledgement by the respondents dated 16.5.2002. Reference was also made to the subsequent three reminders dated 1.9.2002, 11.10.2002 and 16.12.2002. The learned counsel also contends that the property transaction, which was the subject matter of the charges, was a sale transaction of his own property and one of the aggrieved parties appeared to have sent a complaint to the Electricity Board and the said charges were framed in a malafide manner as though the petitioner was indulging in private trade and against the interests of the Electricity Board. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the Electricity Board contends that in the communication dated 16.5.2002 itself, it has been indicated that no voluntary retirement will be permitted in the event of the petitioner being subjected to any disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that the Electricity Board seeks permission to have a re-look into the merits of the charge memo against the petitioner. 8. I have considered the submission of both sides. There is no dispute over the basic facts, namely, the petitioner had forwarded a representation to be voluntarily retired from service with effect from 5.8.2002. There is also no dispute over the fact that the petitioner is qualified to seek for voluntary retirement and that in terms of the scheme, the petitioner had specified 5.8.2002 as the date of retirement. The said communication has also been received by the respondents and by the communication dated 16.5.2002, the respondents have merely expressed that he will not be permitted to be retired in the event of any disciplinary proceedings being initiated on or before 5.8.2002. Therefore, while sending the said communication, the respondents were fully aware of the right of the petitioner to go on retirement with effect from 5.8.2002 provided no disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the said date. 9. In this context, it is also necessary to refer to the scheme of the voluntary retirement applicable to the employees of the Board. Therefore, while sending the said communication, the respondents were fully aware of the right of the petitioner to go on retirement with effect from 5.8.2002 provided no disciplinary proceedings were initiated before the said date. 9. In this context, it is also necessary to refer to the scheme of the voluntary retirement applicable to the employees of the Board. Under clause 17 (gg), an employee, who has attained the age of fifty years or who has completed twenty years of qualifying service, may retire from service by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority. Under clause (e) to the Explanation VI, it is stated that notice of voluntary retirement being given by an employee shall be accepted by the appointing authority, subject to certain conditions specified thereunder. Under clause (f), the appointing authority shall issue orders before the date of expiry of notice either accepting the voluntary retirement or not and that otherwise, the employee shall be deemed to have been retired voluntarily from service at the end of the period of notice. In this case, admittedly, the said period was over and before the said period, no disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. Therefore, on the plain reading of clause (f), the petitioner is deemed to have been retired from service with effect from 5.8.2002. 10. The circumstances under which the charge memo has been issued, also does not appear to be bonafide. The two charges framed against the petitioner relate to alleged violation of clause 19(vii) of the Regulations, namely, that the petitioner had indulged in private trade/transaction to the detriment of the interest of the Electricity Board. In this context, a perusal of the sale deed executed by the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the charge memo, discloses that the property, which was being transacted belongs to the petitioner himself. There is no sale of any property belonging to any third party or the petitioner receiving any commission or any other consideration for the transaction. An action by the employee to sell his own property, by no stretch of imagination, can be stated to be a private transaction or trade to the detriment of the interest of the Electricity Board. The very charge memo framed against the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide and hence, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in both the writ petitions. The very charge memo framed against the petitioner does not appear to be bonafide and hence, the petitioner is entitled to succeed in both the writ petitions. The writ petitions are allowed as prayed for. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.Nos.3138 and 3351 of 2003 are closed.