Judgment :- 1. The Petitioner, B.Varadharajan, has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to 2nd respondents order dated 27.05.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to accept the petitioners voluntary retirement application dated 28.08.2003 and allow him to retire from service w.e.f. 1.9.2003 and settle all the retirement benefits and pensionery benefits with interest within a specified time. 2. The petitioner joined the respondents State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) as a Clerk-cum-Cashier on 20.09.1977 at Polur Branch, Tiruvannamalai District. After his promotion as Assistant Manager on 01.08.1995, he was transferred to Salem Main Branch as Assistant Manager (Accounts).Due to some family problem, without notice, the petitioner tendered his request for voluntary retirement on 28.08.2003, which is to take effect from 01.09.2003. Since the said written request was not in proper format, he further resubmitted his request for voluntary retirement to the 2nd respondent through 4th respondent. The 4th respondent also informed, by letter dated 08.09.2003, that his application has been forwarded to the competent authority with an instruction that he would continue in service till the approval of competent authority was communicated to him. But, due to his family situation, the petitioner could not continue in service. Again, the 4th respondent, by his letter dated 1.11.2003, sought some information regarding non filling of certain particulars in the said application, for which the petitioner is said to have replied vide his letter dated 11.11.2003. Once again, on 31.12.2003, the 4th respondent has directed the petitioner to furnish some more particulars with regard to his voluntary retirement and, further, he was also directed to appear for an exit interview on 16.12.2004 before the 3rd respondent by letter dated 10.02.2004. When the petitioner attended the exit interview, he was directed to withdraw his voluntary retirement application and, accordingly, the petitioner also withdrew his application. Once again, due to various incidents in his personal life, the petitioner withdrew his withdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004 followed by his letter dated 15.03.2004 with a request to the 3rd respondent to settle his retirement benefits. 3. Once again, due to various incidents in his personal life, the petitioner withdrew his withdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004 followed by his letter dated 15.03.2004 with a request to the 3rd respondent to settle his retirement benefits. 3. The question that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner after withdrawing his request letter seeking voluntary retirement from the service of the Bank, can once again, without submitting fresh application for voluntary retirement, withdraw his withdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004 followed by another letter dated 15.03.2004? 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the various circumstances, the petitioner submitted his letter for voluntary retirement. In the exit interview before the 3rd respondent, he was advised to withdraw the request for voluntary retirement and, accordingly, he has withdrawn his letter, but due to some personal grievances, the petitioner has decided to retire from the service of the Bank. Therefore, he withdrew his letter for voluntary retirement submitted earlier without knowing the proceedings to resubmit the application. Therefore, under the bona fide impression that after withdrawing his withdrawal letter dated 20.02.2004 by fax message dated 28.02.2004 followed by another letter dated 15.03.2004, the petitioner was under the impression that his original request for voluntary retirement would be restored back and on that basis, he did not attend the office. Therefore, his subsequent absence from attending the office will not constitute any misconduct as alleged by the bank. 5. Further case of the petitioner is that, in view of his deemed status of voluntary retirement, the petitioner promotional benefits as well as his pension should have been settled and since the same was not settled, the petitioner made a representation on 26.09.2007. When there was no response from the Bank, the petitioner filed W.P.No.8968/2008 seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept his voluntary retirement application dated 28.08.2003 and to settle all the pensionary and retirements benefits forthwith. But, this Court, at the admission stage itself, by an order dated 11.04.2008, without going into merits of the matter, directed respondents 2 to 4 to pass appropriate order on his application dated 28.08.2003 within a period of four weeks. But, this Court, at the admission stage itself, by an order dated 11.04.2008, without going into merits of the matter, directed respondents 2 to 4 to pass appropriate order on his application dated 28.08.2003 within a period of four weeks. But, the 2nd respondent, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, by an order dated 27.5.2008, rejected the request of the petitioner, since he had already withdrawn his application by his earlier letter dated 22.02.2004. However, the 2nd respondent has stated that the petitioner was entitled to seek voluntary retirement by giving fresh application and the same was also served upon the petitioner through 4th respondent on 04.06.2008. Aggrieved by the said order dated 27.05.2008, the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer as stated above. 6. Refuting the averment made by the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the Bank submitted that the petitioners claim for voluntary retirement has been rejected by an order dated 27.05.2008, since the petitioner had withdrawn his application, by his letter dated 22.02.2004. However, the petitioner was also informed to seek voluntary retirement by giving fresh application, and without making a application, the petitioners request for voluntary retirement, legally, cannot be considered. Further, once his request for voluntary retirement was legally rejected, he has to report for duty immediately, failing which, disciplinary proceedings will have to be initiated. The petitioner also, after proper advise in the exit interview, withdrew his request for voluntary retirement and expressed his willingness to report for duty on 28.02.2004 on account of changed family circumstances. Further, the petitioner also requested that his absence from 01.09.2003 to 27.02.2004, be treated as extraordinary leave by submitting his letter dated 20.02.2004. Though, he requested that his absence from 01.09.2003 to 27.02.2004 be treated as extraordinary leave and shown his willingness to report for work on 28.02.2004, he did not report for work on 28.02.2004. Instead once again, he pressed for his retirement as stated in his letter dated 20.02.2004, though, the bank transferred the petitioner to the place of his choice at Udhagamandalam vide his letter dated 15.03.2004. Instead once again, he pressed for his retirement as stated in his letter dated 20.02.2004, though, the bank transferred the petitioner to the place of his choice at Udhagamandalam vide his letter dated 15.03.2004. However, in response to the letter of the petitioner dated 20.02.2004, he was advised to furnish a fresh application seeking voluntary retirement with prospective effect by letter dated 29.03.2004, but the petitioner did not respond for over three years and by his letter dated 08.08.2007, once again, the petitioner requested that his request for retirement from 01.09.2003 may be accepted. In this view of the matter, the respondents sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either and perused the materials available on record. 8. When the petitioners representation dated 08.08.2007 made to the 2nd respondent through 4th respondent, requesting to settle all the benefits at the earliest, but the same was not considered by the respondents. Again, he made another representation by way of reminder on 26.09.2007, though the petitioner was still in service, to settle his pensionary benefits. As his application for voluntary retirement was not considered, the petitioner has filed W.P.No.8968/2008 to issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to accept the voluntary retirement application dated 28.08.2003 and settle all the pensionary retirement benefits. This Court, while dismissing the said writ petition, directed the respondents 2 to 4 to pass appropriate order on his application dated 28.08.2003 within a period of four weeks. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the 2nd respondent rejected his request for voluntary retirement by an order dated 27.05.2008, on the ground that the petitioner had withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 22.02.2004. Further, the 2nd respondent, while giving the above said direction, granted liberty to the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement by giving fresh application. But, it is not known as to why the petitioner has not come forward to submit a fresh application for voluntary retirement from the service of the respondents. 9. The law dealing with acceptance of VRS and withdrawal of the option has been laid down in different judgments of the Apex Court from time to time. The earliest in this behalf is in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 180 . 9. The law dealing with acceptance of VRS and withdrawal of the option has been laid down in different judgments of the Apex Court from time to time. The earliest in this behalf is in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1969 SC 180 . In that matter, an I.A.S. Officer had asked the government to relieve him from service. The government accepted it. However, before the communication of the order accepting resignation reached the appellant, the appellant withdrew his offer. Yet, the Supreme Court held that the appellant had no locus to withdraw his offer of resignation, after it was accepted. This Court also held that there was no rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India when the resignation becomes effective. Useful reference can also be made from a judgment of this Court rendered in W.P. No.7658/07, etc., dated 30th Sept., 2009, in which I was also one of the member. In the above said judgment, the First Bench of this Court has held as follows :- "54. In Raj Narain Vs. Smt.Indira Nehru Gandhi reported in AIR 1972 SC 1302 the Apex Court held that the services of a government servant normally stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted, unless there is any law to the contrary. 55. The judgment in Balram Gupta (Supra) will have to be looked at on this background. 56. Then, there are judgments depending upon the service conditions of the particular organization. Thus, in Vice chairman and Managing Director, APSIDC Ltd. Vs. R.Varaprasad reported in 2003-III-LLJ 23 the Scheme of the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited for VRS was under consideration. The Apex Court held that after the acceptance of VRS, withdrawal of the option was not permissible, though it may be prior to actual relieving of the employees. 57. In Bank of India Vs. O.P.Swarnakar reported in (2003) 2 SCC 721 the Punjab National Bank Employees Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 2000 was under consideration. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held that the employee could withdraw his option from the Scheme before the same was accepted. 58. Similarly, in Food Corporation of India Vs. Ramesh Kumar, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 141 the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the FCI was under consideration. In the facts and circumstances of that case, the Apex Court held that the employee could withdraw his option from the Scheme before the same was accepted. 58. Similarly, in Food Corporation of India Vs. Ramesh Kumar, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 141 the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the FCI was under consideration. After considering the provisions of the said Scheme the Apex Court held that once an employee submits his application for voluntary retirement, it shall be treated as final, and it is not open to the employee to withdraw the same. Same is the view in State Bank of Patiala Vs. Romesh Chander Kanoji reported in (2004) 2 SCC 651 ." But, in the present case, though the petitioner submitted his application seeking voluntary retirement from service from the respondent-Bank, the application submitted by the petitioner was not complete in all respects and, therefore, the respondent-Bank asked the petitioner to furnish more information and, subsequently, without furnishing the entire particulars, the petitioner wanted to withdraw the said application. In view of that, the respondent-Bank asked the petitioner to submit fresh application and that has not been done by the petitioner. Therefore, the question of application of any of the abovesaid judgments also will not arise in this case. 10. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/bank, when the petitioner has appeared in the exit interview to finalize his voluntary retirement, he was advised to withdraw his voluntary retirement and on account of changed family circumstances, he expressed his willingness to report for duty on 28.02.2004. But, subsequently, he did not report for duty, even though, the petitioner had withdrawn his request for voluntary retirement. Once again, the petitioner requested, his absence from 01.09.2003 to 27.02.2004 be treated as extraordinary leave and submitted his letter dated 20.02.2004. Even, when reporting for duty, in the place where he was working, he pressed for his retirement as stated in letter dated 20.02.2004. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred to a place of his choice at Udhagamandalam vide letter dated 15.03.2004. Therefore, the petitioner should have known his position, when he moved a writ petition No.8968/2008 before this Court with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to accept his application for voluntary retirement dated 28.08.2003. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred to a place of his choice at Udhagamandalam vide letter dated 15.03.2004. Therefore, the petitioner should have known his position, when he moved a writ petition No.8968/2008 before this Court with a prayer to issue a direction to the respondents to accept his application for voluntary retirement dated 28.08.2003. The respondents/bank has not accepted his voluntary retirement and, therefore, the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents/bank cannot take any disciplinary action, since his application seeking voluntary retirement is deemed to have been accepted is not sustainable. Further, after the rejection of his application for voluntary retirement, the petitioner must have understood that when his request for voluntary retirement was not legally accepted by the respondents, he should have reported for duty and failure to which report for duty has been viewed by respondents-Bank and therefore, the same, cannot be said to be malafide action on the part of the Bank. Therefore, the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not sustainable in law and the ultimate contention of the petitioner that no fresh application is required for seeking voluntary retirement is also not acceptable in law and the blame casted by him on the respondents bank for not releasing the service benefits does not merit acceptance. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. In result, the writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.