Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-The State of Rajasthan has come in appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.1997 allowing the writ petition of respondent No. 1 R.P. Agarwal with a direction to the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein to treat him as having voluntarily retired with effect from 30.09.1994 and to grant/sanction all consequential retiral benefits to him. 2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant to dispose of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 who was holding the post of Technical Advisor in the State Enterprises Department of the State Government, sought voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1994 by giving notice to that effect on 02.06.1994. He was informed vide letters dated 20.06.1994 and 06.07.1994 that his request was under consideration but no decision in the matter was communicated. On 30.09.1994 he relinquished the charge of the post. Later, on 25.03.1995 he was served with a charge-sheet in respect of a departmental proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1958 (in short CCA Rules). Two more charge-sheets were issued respectively on 26.04.1996 and 111.1996. As the retiral dues were not being finalized, presumably on account of initiation of the departmental proceedings, the respondent approached this Court seeking direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to pay him retiral benefits. 3. The question which in the facts and circumstances arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether by reason of his offer of voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1994, the employer-employee relationship came to an end on that date and, therefore, whether any departmental proceeding could be initiated against him and on that ground his retiral dues could be withheld. The learned Single Judge held that in terms of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the respondent stood voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period on 30.09.1994 and he could not be denied his retiral dues. 4. Appearing for the appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq, learned Addl. The learned Single Judge held that in terms of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the respondent stood voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period on 30.09.1994 and he could not be denied his retiral dues. 4. Appearing for the appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq, learned Addl. Advocate General, submitted that the notice dated 02.06.1994 was merely an offer of voluntary retirement from service and until and unless the offer was accepted by the Government, it could not be said that it took effect automatically on expiry of the notice period and inasmuch as no decision was communicated to the respondent accepting his offer of voluntary retirement, he cannot be deemed to have retired from service on 30.09.1994. 5. Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 provides for voluntary retirement from Government service. So far as relevant, the rule runs as under:-"244(1 ). Optional Retirement on Completion of 20 years qualifying service.-(a) A Government servant may, after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing 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 has given notice for seeking retirement under Clause (a) 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. On a plain reading it would appear that the request of the Government servant to voluntarily retire after completing the qualifying service or attaining the qualifying age is not binding on the Government, and in situations contemplated in Clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) of the proviso, the appointing authority may reject the request. To this extend the submission of Shri Rafiq that the notice dated 02.06.1994 was in the nature of the request of the offer which was not binding on the Government is correct. However, we do not find any substance in the contention that the notice did not take effect and the respondent continued in Government service because the Government did not communicate its decision to him. The Government servant is not supposed to wait till the State Government communicates its decision on the request, and till that is done, the request remains in abeyance, and he continues in the employment of the Government. The fact that the Government servant is under suspension or is facing enquiry or a proceeding is contemplated against him are grounds on which the request can be turned down but it does not mean that the Government can withhold its decision. It may withhold permission, but it can not withhold its decision so as to make the rule inapplicable and render the right of the Government servant infructuous. 7. The point is not res-integra which would be evident from the following decisions. 8. In B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1978 (2) SCC 202 , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider an identical provision in Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 161 laid down:- 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…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 withhold 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." 9. Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold 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." 9. A question arose about the meaning of the word "withhold" and on behalf of the State it was argued with reference to the meaning of the word in Websters Third New International Dictionary as "hold back" that the permission should be deemed to have been withheld if it is not communicated. Rejecting the submission the Court observed:- "We are not able to read the meaning of the word withhold as indicating that in the absence of a communication it must be understood as the permission having been withheld." 10. Construing scope of the rule the Court observed:-"The words "It shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission" would indicate that the appointing authority has got an option to withhold permission and that could be exercised by communicating its intention to withhold permission to the Government servant." xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "For the proviso to become operative it is necessary that the Government should not only take a decision but communicate it to the Government servant. It is not necessary that the communication should reach the Government servant." xxx xxx xxx "On a consideration of Rule 161 (2) (ii) and the proviso, we are satisfied that it is incumbent on the Government to communicate to the Government servant its decision to withhold permission to retire on one of the grounds specified in the proviso." 11. A similar provision contained in Rule 1801 of the Railway Establishment Code fell for consideration in Union of India & Others vs. Sayed Mazaffar Mir, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76. The rule conferred a right on the employee to seek premature retirement after giving three months notice; under the rule however it was open to the Railways to withhold permission where the employee is under suspension, or the retain him in service. Repelling the contention of the Railways it was observed: "There are two answers to this submission. The rule conferred a right on the employee to seek premature retirement after giving three months notice; under the rule however it was open to the Railways to withhold permission where the employee is under suspension, or the retain him in service. Repelling the contention of the Railways it was observed: "There are two answers to this submission. The first is that both the provisions relied upon by the learned Counsel would require, according to us, passing of appropriate order, when the Government servant is under suspension (as was the respondent), either of withholding permission to retire or retaining of the incumbent in service. It is an admitted fact that no such order had been passed in the present case. So, despite the right given to the appropriate/ competent authority in this regard, the same is of no avail in the present case as the right had not come to be exercised. We do not know the reason (s) thereof . May be, for some reason the authority concerned thought that it would be better to see off the respondent by allowing him to retire. The second aspect of the matter is that it has been held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam, 1977 (4) SCC 441 , which has dealt with a pari material provision finding place in Rule 56 © of the fundamental Rules, that where the Government servant seeks premature retirement the same does not required any acceptance and comes into effect on the completion of the notice period. This decision was followed by another three-Judge Bench in B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat, 1978 (2) SCC 202 ." 12. In State of Haryana & Ors. vs. S.K. Singhal, 1994 SCC 293 , the decision in B.J. Shelat and Sayed Muzaffar Mir were noticed and explained as under:-"If , however, as in B.J. Shelat case and as in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case the authority concerned is empowered to withhold permission to retire if certain departmental enquiry is pending or is comtemplated, the mere pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on the expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the authority concerned must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B.J. Shelat case and in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case before the expiry of the notice period. Consequently, there is no requirement of an order of acceptance of the notice to be communicated to the employee nor can it be said that non communication of acceptance should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission." 13. In S.K. Singhal case (Supra) and, later, in Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram, 2001 (3) SCC 290 , which followed the decision in S.K. Singhal and earlier cases referred to above, the Supreme Court categorized cases of voluntary retirement-depending on the rule in three categories. To quote their Lordships in Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram, at page 311. "There are three categories of rules relating to seeking of voluntary retirement after notice. In the first category, voluntary retirement automatically comes into force on expiry of notice period. In the second category also, retirement comes into force unless an order is passed during notice period withholding permission to retire and in the third category voluntary retirement does not come into force unless permission to this effect is granted by the competent authority. In such a case, refusal of permission can be communicated even after the expiry of the notice period. It all depends upon the relevant rules." 14. The instant case, it is evident, falls in the second category if not in the first category, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the State Government not only to take a positive decision rejecting the offer of the respondent on the ground that a departmental proceeding was contemplated against him but also to communicate such decision to him within the notice period i.e., by 30.09.1994. Indeed, Clause (b) of Rule 244 (1) which provides that the Government servant may presume acceptance of the notice of retirement and the retirement becomes effective in terms of the notice automatically "unless" an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the competent authority and served…." leaves no room for doubt that the Government was required to communicate its decision, not to accept the offer, within the notice period. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to suggest that any such decision was taken muchless communicated to the respondent. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to suggest that any such decision was taken muchless communicated to the respondent. It would thus follow that the voluntary retirement took effect on expiry of the notice period i.e., on 30.09.1994. 15. It would not be out of place to mention here that during this period on 06.07.1994 the respondent had been asked to submit pension papers so that pension etc. could be finalized on time, informing him that he was to retire in the current financial year. Apparently, the authority had in mind the respondents impending retirement on 30.09.1994. 16. In the above premises, the Judgment of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition holding the respondent entitled to all consequential retrial benefits, does not require any interference by the Division Bench. 17. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed but without any order as to costs. 2006 RJN 4 (Raj)(DB) [Jaipur Bench] Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri S.N. Jha & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Shri R.S. Chauhan State of Rajasthan Versus Shri R.P. Agarwal & Ors. [Jaipur] D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 1024 of 1997-Decided on 03/02/2006 Point in Issue : Service and Employment - Voluntarily retirement - Retiral benefits - Grant of . Head Note : Service and Employment - Voluntarily retirement - Retiral benefits - Grant of - Respondent No. 1 sought voluntary retirement w.e.f. 30.09.1994 by giving notice to that effect on 02.06.1994 -He was informed vide letters dated 20.06.1994 and 06.07.1994 that his request was under consideration but no decision in the matter was communicated - On 30.09.1994, he relinquished the charge of the post - Later, on 25.03.1995, he was served with a charge-sheet - It was incumbent upon the State Government not only to take a positive decision rejecting the offer of the respondent on the ground that a departmental proceeding was contemplated against him but also to communicate such decision to him within the notice period, i.e., by 30.09.1994 -No such decision was taken much less communicated to the respondent -Voluntary retirement took effect on expiry of the notice period - Single Judge was right in holding that the respondent are entitled to all consequential retiral benefits - Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 - Rule 16 - Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 - Rule 244. Held : The instant case, it is evident, falls in the second category if not in the first category, and therefore, it was incumbent upon the State Government not only to take a positive decision rejecting the offer of the respondent on the ground that a departmental proceeding was contemplated against him but also to communicate such decision to him within the notice period i.e., by 30.09.1994. Indeed, Clause (b) of Rule 244 (1) which provides that the Government servant may presume acceptance of the notice of retirement and the retirement becomes effective in terms of the notice automatically "unless" an order in writing to the contrary has been issued by the competent authority and served…." leaves no room for doubt that the Government was required to communicate its decision, not to accept the offer, within the notice period. Admittedly, there is nothing on record to suggest that any such decision was taken muchless communicated to the respondent. It would thus follow that the voluntary retirement took effect on expiry of the notice period i.e., on 30.09.1994. [14 Para ] Court also mentioned here that during this period on 06.07.1994, the respondent had been asked to submit pension papers so that pension etc. could be finalized on time, informing him that he was to retire in the current financial year. Apparently, the authority had in mind the respondents impending retirement on 30.09.1994. [15 Para ] The Judgment of the Single Judge allowing the writ petition holding the respondent entitled to all consequential retiral benefits, does not require any interference by the Division Bench. [Para 16] Parallel Citation 2006 (3) RDD 1284 (Raj) (DB) Cases Law Analysis : B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., 1978 (2) SCC 202 [Para 8];; Union of India & Ors. vs. Sayed Mazaffar Mir, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76 [Para 11];; State of Haryana & Ors. vs. S.K. Singhal, 1994 SCC 293 [Para 12];; Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram, 2001 (3) SCC 290 [Para 13]. -Followed Appearance : Mr. Mohd.Rafiq A.A.G., for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Singh for Mr. Paras Kuhad, for the Respondents Case Referred : Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam, 1977 (4) SCC 111. vs. S.K. Singhal, 1994 SCC 293 [Para 12];; Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram, 2001 (3) SCC 290 [Para 13]. -Followed Appearance : Mr. Mohd.Rafiq A.A.G., for the Petitioner. Mr. Mahendra Singh for Mr. Paras Kuhad, for the Respondents Case Referred : Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam, 1977 (4) SCC 111. Decided in Favour of : Respondents Appeal Dismissed Judgment S.N. Jha, CJ.-The State of Rajasthan has come in appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge dated 29.05.1997 allowing the writ petition of respondent No. 1 R.P. Agarwal with a direction to the appellant and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 herein to treat him as having voluntarily retired with effect from 30.09.1994 and to grant/sanction all consequential retiral benefits to him. 2. Brief facts of the case so far as relevant to dispose of this appeal are that respondent No. 1 who was holding the post of Technical Advisor in the State Enterprises Department of the State Government, sought voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1994 by giving notice to that effect on 02.06.1994. He was informed vide letters dated 20.06.1994 and 06.07.1994 that his request was under consideration but no decision in the matter was communicated. On 30.09.1994 he relinquished the charge of the post. Later, on 25.03.1995 he was served with a charge-sheet in respect of a departmental proceeding under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal ) Rules, 1958 (in short CCA Rules). Two more charge-sheets were issued respectively on 26.04.1996 and 111.1996. As the retiral dues were not being finalized, presumably on account of initiation of the departmental proceedings, the respondent approached this Court seeking direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to pay him retiral benefits. 3. The question which in the facts and circumstances arose for consideration before the learned Single Judge was whether by reason of his offer of voluntary retirement with effect from 30.09.1994, the employer-employee relationship came to an end on that date and, therefore, whether any departmental proceeding could be initiated against him and on that ground his retiral dues could be withheld. The learned Single Judge held that in terms of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the respondent stood voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period on 30.09.1994 and he could not be denied his retiral dues. 4. Appearing for the appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq, learned Addl. The learned Single Judge held that in terms of Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, the respondent stood voluntarily retired on expiry of the notice period on 30.09.1994 and he could not be denied his retiral dues. 4. Appearing for the appellant Shri Mohd. Rafiq, learned Addl. Advocate General, submitted that the notice dated 02.06.1994 was merely an offer of voluntary retirement from service and until and unless the offer was accepted by the Government, it could not be said that it took effect automatically on expiry of the notice period and inasmuch as no decision was communicated to the respondent accepting his offer of voluntary retirement, he cannot be deemed to have retired from service on 30.09.1994. 5. Rule 244 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 provides for voluntary retirement from Government service. So far as relevant, the rule runs as under:-"244(1 ). Optional Retirement on Completion of 20 years qualifying service.-(a) A Government servant may, after giving at least 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing 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 has given notice for seeking retirement under Clause (a) 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. On a plain reading it would appear that the request of the Government servant to voluntarily retire after completing the qualifying service or attaining the qualifying age is not binding on the Government, and in situations contemplated in Clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) of the proviso, the appointing authority may reject the request. To this extend the submission of Shri Rafiq that the notice dated 02.06.1994 was in the nature of the request of the offer which was not binding on the Government is correct. However, we do not find any substance in the contention that the notice did not take effect and the respondent continued in Government service because the Government did not communicate its decision to him. The Government servant is not supposed to wait till the State Government communicates its decision on the request, and till that is done, the request remains in abeyance, and he continues in the employment of the Government. The fact that the Government servant is under suspension or is facing enquiry or a proceeding is contemplated against him are grounds on which the request can be turned down but it does not mean that the Government can withhold its decision. It may withhold permission, but it can not withhold its decision so as to make the rule inapplicable and render the right of the Government servant infructuous. .7. The point is not res-integra which would be evident from the following decisions. .8. In B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1978 (2) SCC 202 , the Supreme Court had occasion to consider an identical provision in Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959. Clause (ii) of Sub-rule (2) of Rule 161 laid down:- .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…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 withhold 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." 9. Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold 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." 9. A question arose about the meaning of the word "withhold" and on behalf of the State it was argued with reference to the meaning of the word in Websters Third New International Dictionary as "hold back" that the permission should be deemed to have been withheld if it is not communicated. Rejecting the submission the Court observed:- "We are not able to read the meaning of the word withhold as indicating that in the absence of a communication it must be understood as the permission having been withheld." 10. Construing scope of the rule the Court observed:-"The words "It shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission" would indicate that the appointing authority has got an option to withhold permission and that could be exercised by communicating its intention to withhold permission to the Government servant." xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx "For the proviso to become operative it is necessary that the Government should not only take a decision but communicate it to the Government servant. It is not necessary that the communication should reach the Government servant." xxx xxx xxx "On a consideration of Rule 161 (2) (ii) and the proviso, we are satisfied that it is incumbent on the Government to communicate to the Government servant its decision to withhold permission to retire on one of the grounds specified in the proviso." 11. A similar provision contained in Rule 1801 of the Railway Establishment Code fell for consideration in Union of India & Others vs. Sayed Mazaffar Mir, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76. The rule conferred a right on the employee to seek premature retirement after giving three months notice; under the rule however it was open to the Railways to withhold permission where the employee is under suspension, or the retain him in service. Repelling the contention of the Railways it was observed: "There are two answers to this submission. The rule conferred a right on the employee to seek premature retirement after giving three months notice; under the rule however it was open to the Railways to withhold permission where the employee is under suspension, or the retain him in service. Repelling the contention of the Railways it was observed: "There are two answers to this submission. The first is that both the provisions relied upon by the learned Counsel would require, according to us, passing of appropriate order, when the Government servant is under suspension (as was the respondent), either of withholding permission to retire or retaining of the incumbent in service. It is an admitted fact that no such order had been passed in the present case. So, despite the right given to the appropriate/ competent authority in this regard, the same is of no avail in the present case as the right had not come to be exercised. We do not know the reason (s) thereof . May be, for some reason the authority concerned thought that it would be better to see off the respondent by allowing him to retire. The second aspect of the matter is that it has been held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam, 1977 (4) SCC 441 , which has dealt with a pari material provision finding place in Rule 56 © of the fundamental Rules, that where the Government servant seeks premature retirement the same does not required any acceptance and comes into effect on the completion of the notice period. This decision was followed by another three-Judge Bench in B.J. Shelat vs. State of Gujarat, 1978 (2) SCC 202 ." 12. In State of Haryana & Ors. vs. S.K. Singhal, 1994 SCC 293 , the decision in B.J. Shelat and Sayed Muzaffar Mir were noticed and explained as under:-"If , however, as in B.J. Shelat case and as in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case the authority concerned is empowered to withhold permission to retire if certain departmental enquiry is pending or is comtemplated, the mere pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on the expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the authority concerned must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B.J. Shelat case and in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case before the expiry of the notice period. Consequently, there is no requirement of an order of acceptance of the notice to be communicated to the employee nor can it be said that non communication of acceptance should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission." 13. In S.K. Singhal case (Supra) and, later, in Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram, 2001 (3) SCC 290 , which followed the decision in S.K. Singhal and earlier cases referred to above, the Supreme Court categorized cases of voluntary retirement-depending on the rule in three categories. To quote their Lordships in Tek Chand vs. Dile Ram, at page 311. "There are three categories of rules relating to seeking of voluntary retirement after notice. In the first category, voluntary retirement automatically comes into force on expiry of notice period. In the second category also, retirement comes into force unless an order is passed during notice period withholdin