Judgment : Common Order 1. Both the Writ Petitions are filed by the same petitioner. The respondents are also common. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order. 2. The petitioner was, initially, appointed as Cashier in the Andhra Pradesh Small Scale Industrial Development Corporation in the year 1976 and he got promotion as Commercial Accountant in the year 1979. In the year 1995, he was deputed to the A.P. State Wakf Board, the 1st respondent herein, as Accountant. On 07-07-1997, he was appointed as Accounts Officer on deputation. Thereafter, the 1st respondent absorbed the petitioner, on permanent basis, with effect from 01-03-1999. 3. Through order, dated 08-04-2009, the petitioner was directed to function as Chief Inspector Auditor (for short ‘CIA’). Stating that he cannot be entrusted with such duties, the petitioner filed WP No.7704 of 2009. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner submitted a letter, dated 20-01-2010, to the 1st respondent with a request to permit him to retire on voluntary basis with effect from 01-04-2010. The 1st respondent declined to consider the request in its resolution, dated 04-02-2010. However, on 24-04-2010, the offer of voluntary retirement of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was retired from service. Through the same order, punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect was also imposed. WP No.10145 of 2010 was filed against it. 4. Petitioner contends that the letter for voluntary retirement was, in a way, rejected in February 2010 and there was absolutely no basis for the respondents to consider the same once again. He contends that the letter for voluntary retirement has been withdrawn by him and at any rate, it ought not to have been considered after 01-04-2010. As regards the posting of the petitioner as CIA, it is urged that the duties attached to the post of Accounts Officer are totally different from those of that post and there was no basis for the respondents in posting him as such. 5. Separate counter affidavits are filed by the respondents attempting to justify their action. The allegation of the petitioner that he has withdrawn the letter of voluntary retirement is denied. It is also stated that the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to immediately, on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and once the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted. The allegation of the petitioner that he has withdrawn the letter of voluntary retirement is denied. It is also stated that the request of the petitioner could not be acceded to immediately, on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings and once the disciplinary proceedings were concluded, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted. It is urged that no illegality has crept into the proceedings. 6. Sri C.B. Rammohan Reddy and Sri M.V. Subbareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the respective writ petitions, submit that the post of Accounts Officer carries totally different set of duties when compared to that of CIA and there was no basis or justification for the respondents in appointing the petitioner as CIA. As regards the proceedings, dated 24-02-2010, learned counsel submit that the offer for voluntary retirement was rejected in February 2010 and it ought not to have been considered once again, particularly after the time mentioned in the letter. 7. Sri G. Gangaiah Naidu, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, submits that several complaints are received against the petitioner as to his functioning as Accounts Officer and to avoid friction in the administration, he was appointed as CIA without any reduction in emoluments. He contends that though the acts and omissions on the part of the petitioner warranted disciplinary action, as a measure of adjustment, he was posted as CIA. Learned Senior Counsel submits that the offer of voluntary retirement was not accepted immediately, on account of pendency of disciplinary proceedings and once the competent authority imposed punishment of stoppage of increment with cumulative effect, the offer was accepted. He submits that there is no illegality in the entire proceedings. 8. Legality of proceedings, dated 24-04-2010, needs to be taken first. The petitioner submitted representation, dated 20-01-2010, with a request to permit him to retire voluntarily with effect from 01-04-2010. It is always competent for an employer to accept such offer, as long as it was not withdrawn. The application was placed before the Board of Management at its meeting held on 04-02-2010. A resolution was passed to the effect that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Many a time, employees choose to go on voluntary retirement to avoid any unpleasant developments. In case they are forced to face such developments, they may not prefer to go by voluntary retirement. A resolution was passed to the effect that the request of the petitioner cannot be acceded to on account of the pendency of disciplinary proceedings. Many a time, employees choose to go on voluntary retirement to avoid any unpleasant developments. In case they are forced to face such developments, they may not prefer to go by voluntary retirement. Further, wherever the facility of voluntary retirement exists, it is always subject to the condition that the employee is not facing any disciplinary proceedings. Once the respondents have decided not to accept the offer of the petitioner through their resolution, dated 04-02-2010, for all practical purposes, the offer made by the petitioner stood rejected. 9. Petitioner submits that he has withdrawn the letter of voluntary retirement. There is some dispute as to the genuinity of the acknowledgment of withdrawal letter. Even if it is assumed that the offer was not withdrawn at all, there was nothing, which the respondents could have done after they passed the resolution on 04-02-2010. 10. Assuming that the offer made by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was alive beyond 04-02-2010, it could have been acted upon before 01-04-2010. The date stipulated by an employee, while seeking voluntary retirement has its own significance. The offer would hold good, if only, it is accepted within the stipulated time. If the attempt made by the employee does not fructify within that time, the very purpose may cease to exist. Take for instance a case where an employee has an offer in another organization, on condition that he should get himself relieved in the organization where he is working, by a particular date. If his application for voluntary retirement was not accepted within that time, he may forego the offer made by the other organization and if the application for voluntary retirement is accepted after the stipulated date, he may loose both. The instances where the employees submit resignations or apply for voluntary retirement with a view to contest in the elections, would also provide an example. If the offer is not accepted within the stipulated time and in the meanwhile, the date for filing of nomination has expired, the acceptance of resignation at a later point of time, would put him to loose on both counts. The examples can be multiplied. Once an employee stipulates a date for voluntary retirement, the employer has to accept it within that time. The examples can be multiplied. Once an employee stipulates a date for voluntary retirement, the employer has to accept it within that time. In case, the employer intends to consider the application beyond the stipulated time, he must ascertain from the employee as to whether his offer is still alive. Admittedly, in the instant case, the offer is not alive. Further, the date stipulated by the petitioner and his view as to whether his offer is alive was not ascertained. Therefore, the proceedings dated, 24-04-2010, through which the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was accepted, cannot be sustained in law. Hence, W.P. No.10145 of 2010 is allowed. 11. Coming to W.P. No.7704 of 2009. The grievance of the petitioner is that he is posted as CIA, though his regular appointment is as Accounts Officer. The respondents not place before this Court, any cadre rules, which equate the post of Accounts Officer with that of CIA. It is only when both the posts are inter-changeable, that posting can be sustained. In case, the 1st respondent has any dissatisfaction as to the functioning of the petitioner as Accounts Officer, it can certainly make alternative arrangements, in such a way, that the petitioner’s rights are not put to jeopardy. At any rate, the left over service of the petitioner is hardly one month. He can be required to avail leave or he can be assigned any other duties, in such a way, as not to reduce his ranking or emoluments. Hence, W.P. No.7704 is allowed. 12. There shall be no order as to costs.