JUDGMENT: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The applicant is aggrieved against the order dated 22.05.2009 passed in W.P.(S) N. 4057 of 2004 by which the appellant's writ petition challenging the order dated 11.10.1999 has been dismissed. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was working as a Manager in the employment of the respondent Bokaro Steel Ltd. and thereafter which became a unit of Steel Authority of India from 20.02.1998. A Voluntary Retirement Scheme was introduced as per order dated 20.02.1998 and petitioner to take benefit under the scheme applied for voluntary retirement on 07.04.1998. The appellant also submitted an application for Travelling Allowance on 06.04.1998. The said application for Travelling Allowance was rejected by the employer on 06.04.1998 on the ground that his voluntary retirement has not been accepted yet. According to the appellant he sought his retirement from 30.04.1998 by moving the application referred above and the appellant applied for leave from 30.04.1998 to 31.05.1998 and the said leave was duly sanctioned to the appellant. According to the appellant petitioner he got appointment in the United States of America which required him to join immediately in the United States of America. Then appellant again applied for Earned Leave from 01.06.1998 to 30.06.1998. However, instead of sanction of the said leave appellant was served with the letter dated 26.06.1998 asking him to join the duties from 01.07.1998. Appellant did not join the duties and he again applied for Earned Leave from 01.07.1998 to 31.08.1998. 4. The respondent employer again vide letter dated 03.08.1998 informed the appellant that application for extension of leave was not granted and thus he is being treated as absent from duty without leave and for which disciplinary proceeding was sought to be initiated for unauthorized absence of the appellant. The respondent again sent a letter on 14.08.1998 asking the appellant to report for duty within ten days failing which disciplinary action will be initiated and ultimately on 11.10.1998 a disciplinary enquiry for unauthorised absence from duty was initiated against the appellant. The respondent again sent a letter on 14.08.1998 asking the appellant to report for duty within ten days failing which disciplinary action will be initiated and ultimately on 11.10.1998 a disciplinary enquiry for unauthorised absence from duty was initiated against the appellant. The appellant submitted his reply to the charges on 02.11.1998 followed by another representation dated 20.11.1998 requesting the respondents to accept the Voluntary Retirement Application w.e.f. 30.04.1998 finding that appellant's application for voluntary retirement scheme was not accepted, the appellant approached the Kerala High Court by filing writ petition and the appellant sought relief that respondent be directed to grant voluntary retirement to the writ petitionerappellant under the voluntary retirement scheme and it was contended that some similarly situated persons have been granted voluntary retirement by the respondents and discriminatingly the petitionerappellant has not been granted said relief arbitrarily. The petitioner appellant also prayed that respondent Union of India be directed to take appropriate action on appellant's representation (Exhibit P15) whereby appellant raised grievance against nonacceptance of voluntary retirement application by the respondent employer as well as he raised objection against initiation of the disciplinary action. The Kerala High Court, after hearing the standing counsel for the Central Government by giving notice to the learned counsel for the Central Government, on the same day disposed of the writ petition of the petitionerappellant vide order dated 23.04.1999 directing the respondent Union of India to dispose of Exhibit P15 (representation submitted by the writ petitioner) within a reasonable time and it was made clear that whatever action taken on exhibit P14 will be subject to the order to be passed in Exhibit P15. 5. After order of 23.04.1999 the appellant was given due opportunity by the respondent Union of India and vide order dated 11.10.1999 (Annexure17) the appellant's representation was rejected by reasoned order. Thereafter on 29.12.1999, the appellant was punished in the departmental proceeding with punishment of termination from service. The appellant then again approached the Kerala High Court by preferring writ petition No. 26659 of 1999. However, the appellant's this writ petition was dismissed by the Kerala High Court vide order dated 25.06.2004 holding that the Kerala High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Hence the writ petitioner approached this Court by preferring present writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4057 of 2004. However, the appellant's this writ petition was dismissed by the Kerala High Court vide order dated 25.06.2004 holding that the Kerala High Court has no territorial jurisdiction. Hence the writ petitioner approached this Court by preferring present writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4057 of 2004. The petitioner'sappellant's writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge after observing that no right vests in the writ petitioner to seek any direction against the respondents for acceptance of the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement as it is the discretion of the employer whether to retire the employee or not under the voluntary retirement scheme. Learned Single Judge has also considered the facts referred above in the order dated 22.05.2009. 6. Being aggrieved against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.05.2009 the appellant has preferred this L.P.A. and learned counsel for the appellant vehementally submitted that it is admitted case that appellant submitted application for voluntary retirement under the scheme which was applicable and was governing the case of the appellant. The appellant's said application was not considered and the respondents took a false plea that his application for voluntary retirement was rejected on 06.04.1998 whereas as per the Annexure1/1 and acknowledge slip it is clear that appellant submitted application for voluntary retirement on 07.04.1998 which could not have been rejected on 06.04.1998. It is also submitted that the respondent's another contention that his application for voluntary retirement was rejected on the same day on which it was submitted is factually wrong and legally unsustainable because of the reason that for consideration of an application for voluntary retirement the procedure is required to be followed which could not have been completed in one day and that order of acceptance or rejection could have been passed only by the Managing Director and not by the Director. It is also submitted that the contention of the respondents that his prayer for voluntary retirement was orally rejected is also factually wrong for the same reason that his prayer could not have been rejected on the same day that too orally. It is also submitted that the contention of the respondents that his prayer for voluntary retirement was orally rejected is also factually wrong for the same reason that his prayer could not have been rejected on the same day that too orally. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that appellant was never communicated with any order of rejection and it is admitted case of the respondents that no order rejecting his prayer for voluntary retirement was ever communicated to the appellant and that fact finds support from the order passed by the Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Steel and Mines dated 11.10.1999 who decided the appellant's representation wherein he clearly observed that the order was not communicated to the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that subsequent act or alleged misconduct of the appellant which is subsequent to submitting of application for voluntary retirement is wholly irrelevant so far as consideration of his case for voluntary retirement is concerned because of plain and simple reason that if appellant's application, which should have been accepted in time and if it would have been accepted then the appellant would not have been proceeded departmentally that too on account of remaining absent from duty subsequent from the date of his proposed voluntary retirement. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon various judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to demonstrate that Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the voluntary retirement scheme is a scheme beneficial to the employer as well as to the employee also and at the same time even if discretion vests in the employer either to accept or to reject the prayer for voluntary retirement even then the employer cannot act arbitrarily. It is also submitted that in all the cases after taking note of the conduct of the employer and in the cases where the applications for voluntary retirement were rejected for extraneous consideration like subsequent event of alleged misconduct of the employee, Hon'ble Supreme Court granted the relief of voluntary retirement. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Steel Authority of India Limited submitted that the appellant because of his conduct is not entitled for any relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Steel Authority of India Limited submitted that the appellant because of his conduct is not entitled for any relief in equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that it is true that the appellant submitted application for voluntary retirement under the scheme but he proceeded to join the service in the United States of America and thereby he abandoned the service without permission of respondent and did not report on duty in spite of several letters to him. It is admitted case of the appellant that he joined the service before his application, according to him, was accepted or even rejected by the respondent employer. Therefore, it is nothing but a luxury litigation. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant has no right to presume that his application for voluntary retirement shall be allowed by the respondent so he can leave the job and join the other service. 9. It is also submitted that the appellant did not challenge the disciplinary proceeding at any point of time and so far as his first writ petition before the Kerala High Court is concerned, that writ petition was disposed of with direction to the Union of India who was respondent No. 4 in the writ petition No. 10649 of 1999 and to whom only notice was given in the writ petition No. 10649 of 1999. 10. It is also submitted that the order dated 23.04.1999 passed in W.P. No. 10649/1999 was only to the effect that the appellant's representation should be considered by the Union of India and that has duly been considered and a detailed reasoned order was passed on 11.10.1999 by the competent authority and all factual aspects have been considered by the said authority even with respect to the allegation of discrimination etc. The appellant thereafter was inflicted with the punishment of termination from service vide order dated 29.12.1999 which could have been passed lawfully even in the light of the order dated 23.04.1999 and that order of punishment dated 29.12.1999 was not challenged by the appellant before the Kerala High Court and after rejection of his writ petition by the Kerala High Court vide order dated 25.06.2004, he has approached this Court and even in the present writ petition before this Court, the appellant did not challenge the order of punishment dated 29.12.1999 for the reasons best known to him. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents drew our attention to para37 of the memo of appeal wherein the appellant stated that he reserves his right to challenge the order of termination of service passed against the appellant by the respondents. Therefore, the order dated 29.12.1999 has attained the finality and in view of the above reasons the appellant is not entitled for any relief. 12. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and various facts of the case as well as the judgements relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the case of Manjushree Pathak vs. Assam Industrial Development Corporation limited and Ors. reported in (2000) 7 S.C.C. 390 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the facts of the case held that the Corporation in the said case had no absolute discretion in granting or rejecting the application for voluntary retirement and the Corporation was duty bound to abide by the principles of equality. Appellant has submitted that he also has been discriminated as the similarly situated persons have been granted relief and that too, to the persons who left India to join service at America during consideration of their application for voluntary retirement. 13. In the case of Tek Chand Vs. Dile Ram reported in (2001) 3 S.C.C. 290 the matter was with respect to the claim of voluntary retirement and the employee, after submitting application for voluntary retirement, when sought to be proceeded against departmentally then he approached the Court and initially the Single Bench of the High Court held that the petition is premature. Dile Ram reported in (2001) 3 S.C.C. 290 the matter was with respect to the claim of voluntary retirement and the employee, after submitting application for voluntary retirement, when sought to be proceeded against departmentally then he approached the Court and initially the Single Bench of the High Court held that the petition is premature. However, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the subsequent misconduct of the said employee could not have been taken note as it was nonexistence at the relevant point of time and rejection of the prayer for voluntary retirement cannot be sustained. 14. In the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 704 the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering the procedural lapses and the facts of the case, held the employee entitled to retirement and in this very judgement of Ashok Kumar Sahu (Supra) it has been held that the application for voluntary retirement cannot be deemed to have been accepted automatically unless the rules provides. Therefore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that such application should be considered and appropriate orders should be passed within a reasonable period of time, even in the cases where no period is fixed. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the following judgements in support of his contention: i) Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, I.O. Bank & Ors., 2003 (4) AWC 3055 ii) Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava Vs. Chairman and Managing Director, I.O. Bank & Ors., 2003(1) AWC 550 iii) Bank of India Vs. K.Mohandas, (2009) 5 S.C.C. 313 . iv) Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. The State of Assam and Ors., (1977) 4 S.C.c. 441 . 16. In the light of the above decisions it is clear that the scheme of voluntary retirement is a beneficial scheme for the employer as well as for the employee and it is not unfettered right of the employer to accept or reject the prayer of voluntary retirement made by the employee and principle of equality required to be applied. 17. It is also clear from the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu (Supra) that there is no automatic acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement unless it is specifically provided in the scheme itself. 18. 17. It is also clear from the case of Ashok Kumar Sahu (Supra) that there is no automatic acceptance of the application for voluntary retirement unless it is specifically provided in the scheme itself. 18. In the light of above legal position if we examine the facts of this case then it is clear that the appellant applied for voluntary retirement under the scheme floated by the respondents themselves but the appellant has not placed on record the copy of the said application and he has placed on record only a copy of the receipt given to him of his submitting the application for voluntary retirement which is dated 07.04.1998. The appellant also placed on record the office note sheet wherein it is mentioned that he has applied for voluntary retirement from the service of the company and this application contains the date 06.04.1998 which is one day prior to the receipt given to the petitioner and much has been said about the date on which the appellant's application was treated to be rejected on the basis of the note made on his application for grant of travelling allowance dated 06.04.1998 wherein only it has been mentioned that as the appellant's application for voluntary retirement has not been accepted, therefore, advance cannot be approved. The said fact of filing of the application on 06.04.1998 or 07.04.1998 looses its significance in view of the subsequent developments. Admittedly, there is no specific date from which the appellant sought voluntary retirement except made in his pleadings but without proof which could have been gathered from his application. 19. Be it as it may be, if we go through the pleadings of the appellant then according to him he sought voluntary retirement with effect from 30.04.1998 and he also admitted that he got a job in the United States of America and he was required to report there immediately and it is not in dispute that the appellant left the country and joined the duty at America. The appellant's admitted case is that his leave was not granted from 01.06.1998 to 30.06.1998. The appellant, without awaiting for any order on that application, he proceeded to join service clearly indicate that in case of even rejection of the application of the appellant for voluntary retirement, he would not have joined the duty. The appellant's admitted case is that his leave was not granted from 01.06.1998 to 30.06.1998. The appellant, without awaiting for any order on that application, he proceeded to join service clearly indicate that in case of even rejection of the application of the appellant for voluntary retirement, he would not have joined the duty. His such intention is absolutely clear from his letters dated 10.07.1998 and subsequent communications where in it is clearly indicated that he is not going to join the duty in any case. 20. Therefore, the facts of this case are entirely different and raise a question whether an employee has a right to submit an application for voluntary retirement and without awaiting can he leave the office and join service with other employer that too simultaneously seeking leave and extension of leave and insisting for leave instead of joining the duty in spite of requests of the employer. Another question arises is whether the employer looses its total control over the employee in a situation where the employee has submitted application for voluntary retirement and in spite of sending reminders the employee did not join the duty and in such circumstance whether the employer can initiate the departmental proceeding or not. 21. The appellant in that situation could have raised objection before the disciplinary authority also that disciplinary proceeding cannot proceed which obviously he has not done but he approached the High Court at Kerala where the Hon'ble Kerala Hight Court passed the order for consideration of his representation by Union of India without notice to company in which petitioner was employee and made the disciplinary proceeding subject to the decision of the representation of the appellant. In that situation the respondents obeyed the order and completed the departmental proceeding after the decision given on representation of the appellant and the respondent did so lawfully. The respondents' order dated 29.12.1999 could have been challenged by the appellant but for the reasons best known to him did not challenge the said order even before the Kerala High Court where the appellant's writ petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the appellant did not challenge the said order of termination of service before the Court in the writ petitions. 22. 22. It is not a case where the appellant's voluntary retirement application has been rejected on the ground of appellant's subsequent misconduct which was a case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases referred above wherein the employee, after submitting application for voluntary retirement, indulged himself in the activities of the political parties and on that ground the employee was denied voluntary retirement. Here in this case the two matters are entirely different. One is that appellant's right for consideration for voluntary retirement and another is during that consideration of his application about his misconduct of remaining absent from duty even after receiving reminders. Therefore, in these facts and circumstances, the appellant without challenging the order dated 29.12.1999 cannot get any relief for consideration of his application for voluntary retirement, if it has not been considered. 23. It is further pertinent to mention here that only order dated 11.10.1999 was under challenge before the Kerala High Court as well as before this High Court in the writ petition and the representation was duly considered threadbare by the authority in detail and the plea of discrimination and discriminate treatment to the appellant has been considered by the said authority in detail by taking a note of the facts of the case of each employee and it is held that voluntary retirement in the cases of other employees were passed according to facts of those employee's case and there is no parity of the case of the appellant with the other employee's cases and this finding of fact has not been seriously challenged except raising a point that the appellant has been discriminated. The facts mentioned in the order dated 11.10.1999 distinguished the case of the writ petitioner appellant from the case of the other employee. 24. In view of the above reasons we do not find any merit in this appeal and hence the same is dismissed.