Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 544 (GUJ)

J. T. Rahti v. State of Gujarat

2013-09-04

C.L.SONI

body2013
JUDGMENT : C.L. Soni, J. The petitioner has prayed for following relief in para 7(A) to (D) of the petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:- “(A) declare and hold that the petitioner has retired from the service of the Government w.e.f. 30.9.2005, and direct the respondent authorities to finalise the pension case of the petitioner, and make payment of all the retirement dues accordingly, and (B) quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 2.12.2006, and (C) award the cost of the petition, and (D) pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to restrain the respondent authorities from proceeding further with the departmental inquiry pursuant to the charge sheet dated 2.12.2006.” 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was in the service of Government of Gujarat since 1.2.1984 and since October, 1989, he had been working on the post of Employment Officer Class-II. It is his case that the Government of Gujarat, Labour and Employment Department is the appointing authority for the post of Employment Officer Class-II. The petitioner has averred that on completion of 20 years of service, it was open to him to ask for voluntary retirement by giving three months notice to the appointing authority as per Rule 48 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules 2002 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules). The petitioner served such notice on 30.6.2005 to the appointing authority for voluntary retirement effect from 30.9.2005. The petitioner has further averred that the appointing authority has not refused to grant permission to the petitioner for voluntary retirement before the effective date of retirement i.e. 30.9.2005. The petitioner has averred that after the petitioner made application for voluntary retirement, he was served with charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005 for initiating departmental inquiry against him. It is the case of the petitioner that the Director of Employment and Training, Gujarat State, sent one communication to the Government on 6.9.2005, copy whereof was sent to the petitioner stating that since the charge-sheet was served to the petitioner, the application of the petitioner was filed. The petitioner has raised a contention that since the retirement of the petitioner has become effective from 30.9.2005 and therefore, second charge-sheet for absenteeism given to him is an illegal action on the part of the respondents. The petitioner has raised a contention that since the retirement of the petitioner has become effective from 30.9.2005 and therefore, second charge-sheet for absenteeism given to him is an illegal action on the part of the respondents. The petitioner has thus prayed for release of pension and other benefits to him and to quash and set aside the charge-sheet issued subsequent to the effective date for remaining absent from service. 3. The petition is opposed by affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is mainly stated in the reply that after the petitioner issued notice for voluntary retirement on 30.6.2005, the Director of Employment and Training replied vide letter dated 6.9.2005 stating that the departmental inquiry was pending against the petitioner and therefore, the application of the petitioner was not acceptable. It is further stated that there was a conscious decision of not accepting the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on account of initiation of the departmental inquiry by serving charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005 to the petitioner. It is also stated that since the petitioner had not reported for duty after 30.9.2005, the department had decided to penalise the petitioner for unauthorized absence and misconduct and therefore, the charge-sheet was prepared and sent to the petitioner. It is also stated that the petitioner had gone to U.K. without permission of the higher authority and he had not resumed duty though number of reminders were sent to him. 4. I have heard learned advocates for the parties. 5. Learned advocate Ms. Harshal Pandya for the petitioner submitted that since the petitioner completed qualifying service of 20 years, he became entitled for voluntary retirement under the Rules. Ms. Pandya submitted that Rule 48 of the Rules requires giving of three months notice to the appointing authority for voluntary retirement. The petitioner served such notice dated 30.6.2005 to the appointing authority, i.e. respondent No.1 seeking permission to voluntarily retire with effect from 30.9.2005. Ms. Pandya submitted that when the petitioner served such notice as required by Rule 48 of the Rules, there was no departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner. Ms. The petitioner served such notice dated 30.6.2005 to the appointing authority, i.e. respondent No.1 seeking permission to voluntarily retire with effect from 30.9.2005. Ms. Pandya submitted that when the petitioner served such notice as required by Rule 48 of the Rules, there was no departmental inquiry pending against the petitioner. Ms. Pandya submitted that a charge-sheet for initiation of the departmental inquiry was served upon the petitioner on 18.8.2005 containing two charges, one is that the petitioner, being head of the department, failed to see that cash book was regularly written by the cashier, cashier performed his duty regularly and there is regular checking of the cash with the cashier. Second charge was that though one Mr. Rawal remained absent from duty without leave, he was paid salary for such period. Ms. Pandya submitted that except in respect of above-said two charges, there was no other inquiry against the petitioner. Ms. Pandya submitted that the appointing authority did not refuse to grant permission for voluntary retirement to the petitioner before expiry of the period specified in the notice and therefore, the retirement of the petitioner had become effective on expiry of the period of three months, as mandated by Rule 48 of the Rules. Ms. Pandya submitted that since the departmental inquiry was initiated nearly one month and 17 days after service of the notice for voluntary retirement, initiation of such departmental inquiry would not take away the effect of voluntary retirement provided in Rule 48 of the Rules. Ms. Pandya submitted that the charge-sheet for remaining absent subsequent to the effective date of the retirement cannot stand scrutiny of law as the petitioner was deemed to have retired with effect from 30.9.2005 and therefore, the respondents were not authorised to serve any notice to the petitioner for initiation of any inquiry against the petitioner for remaining absent from service and therefore, the charge-sheet dated 2.12.2006 issued to the petitioner on the charge of remaining unauthorized absent after effective date of retirement is required to be quashed and set aside. 6. As against the above arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Ashar submitted that the notice given by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was under Rule 48 of the Rules. Mr. 6. As against the above arguments, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Neeraj Ashar submitted that the notice given by the petitioner for voluntary retirement was under Rule 48 of the Rules. Mr. Ashar submitted that the proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 48 provides that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before expiry of the period specified in the notice, the retirement shall become effective on expiry of the said period. However, in the present case, the petitioner was refused voluntary retirement vide communication dated 6.9.2005, which was before expiry of three months of the notice on the ground that on account of departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner, on 18.8.2005, the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement was filed. Mr. Ashar submitted that once the intimation was given to the petitioner through communication dated 6.9.2005 about filing of the application for voluntary retirement on account of initiation of the departmental inquiry, the same was clear refusal of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. Mr. Ashar submitted that the petitioner thus had not become entitled for retirement with effect from 30.9.2005. Mr. Ashar submitted that since the petitioner had not become entitled to retire on expiry of three months' notice period, the petitioner was required to resume duty. However, he remained unauthorisedly absent and therefore, the second charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on the charge of remaining unauthorized absent. Mr. Ashar submitted that as regards first departmental inquiry, the petitioner was found guilty and the punishment of stoppage of increment was also imposed against the petitioner. Mr. Ashar, therefore, submitted that the petitioner cannot be made entitled for voluntary retirement on the basis of his notice dated 30.6.2005 under Rule 48 of the Rules. He thus urged to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the record of the case, it appears that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner served three months notice dated 30.6.2005 at Annexure-A seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 30.9.2005 to the appointing authority. Such notice served by the petitioner was under Rule 48 of the Rules. Rule 48 of the Rules reads as under:- “48. Such notice served by the petitioner was under Rule 48 of the Rules. Rule 48 of the Rules reads as under:- “48. Retirement on completion of twenty years' qualifying service: (1) A Government employee on completion of twenty years' qualifying service may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule(1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (3) The qualifying service as on the date of intended retirement of the Government employee retiring under this rule shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by the Government employee does not in any case exceed thirty years: Provided that the total qualifying service after allowing the increase under this sub-rule shall not exceed the qualifying service which the Government employee would have had, if he had retired voluntarily at the lowest age limit for voluntary retirement prescribed under sub-rule(5) of rule 10. (4) (a) A Government employee referred to in sub-rule (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons thereof; (b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the Head of the Department in case of Class-IV employee and the Head of Administrative Department concerned in case of other employees, subject to the provisions of sub-rule(2), may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that there is no departmental inquiry pending or contemplated against the Government employee, may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (5) A Government employee, who has elected to retire under this rule and has given the notice to the effect as required under these rules to the appointing authority, shall not be allowed to withdraw such notice except with the approval of the appointing authority. Provided that the request for withdrawal of notice shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (6) The pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity of the Government employee retiring under this rule shall be based on the pay as defined under rule-9(53) read with rule-43 and the increase not exceeding five years in his qualifying service shall not entitle him to any notional fixation or additional of pay for the purposes of calculating pension and gratuity. (7) This rule shall not apply to a Government employee who retires from Government service for being absorbed permanently in any autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement.” 8. However, the application of the petitioner was filed as found stated in communication dated 6.9.2005 at Annexure-C on the ground that the petitioner was served with charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005. Information/intimation about filing of the application of the petitioner was given to the petitioner by forwarding him the copy of the above-said communication dated 6.9.2005 addressed by the Deputy Director (Employment), Gandhinagar to the appointing authority of the petitioner, i.e. Additional Secretary, Labour and Employment Department, Gandhinagar. It is required to be noted that before expiry of three months, the appointing authority has not passed any order or sent any communication to the petitioner refusing to grant permission for voluntary retirement to the petitioner. However, the respondents have construed the communication dated 6.9.2005 addressed by the Deputy Director (Employment) to the appointing authority of the petitioner as refusal to grant permission to the petitioner for retirement before expiry of the period specified in the notice issued by the petitioner. 9. The communication dated 6.9.2005 appears to be an information given to the Additional Secretary, Labour and Employment Department by the Deputy Director (Employment) that a decision was taken to file the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on account of serving the charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005 to him. On the left side bottom of the communication, the endorsement made reads “draft is approved by the Director”. On the left side bottom of the communication, the endorsement made reads “draft is approved by the Director”. Therefore, the communication was of a decision taken either by the Deputy Director or the Director for filing the application of the petitioner (not entertaining the application of the petitioner). It is nowhere pointed out who took the decision. Even if it is presumed that the Director had taken such decision, such could not be said to be a decision to refuse to grant permission to the petitioner for retirement before expiry of the period specified in the notice of the petitioner. 10. Rule 48(2) clearly provides that after receipt of the notice for voluntary retirement from an employee, the appointing authority, if does not refuse to grant permission for retirement, before expiry of the period specified in the notice, retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. Therefore, as clearly provided if the appointing authority does not want to permit the employee to voluntarily retire from the effective date, it has to positively refuse to grant permission of retirement before the expiry of the period of three months specified in the notice. Communication dated 6.9.2005 for its language and its author, in no circumstances, could be said to be refusal to grant permission for retirement to the petitioner as contemplated in sub-Rule (2) of Rule 48. The appointing authority has not refused to grant permission for retirement to the petitioner before expiry of the specified period of notice. Communication dated 6.9.2005 was just an intimation to the appointing authority about the decision taken for filing of the application and such could never be said to be a decision of the appointing authority to refuse to grant permission to the petitioner for retirement as asked for by the petitioner in the notice. 11. In the case of Tek chand v. Dile Ram reported in (2001)3 SCC 290 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the context of similar rule providing for voluntary retirement on completion of 20 years of service has held and observed from para 31 to 34 as under:- “31. It is not disputed that the appointing authority did not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before expiry of the period specified in the said application dated 5-12-1994 given by Nikka Ram. Further, no communication whatsoever was made to him within the said period. It is not disputed that the appointing authority did not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before expiry of the period specified in the said application dated 5-12-1994 given by Nikka Ram. Further, no communication whatsoever was made to him within the said period. During the course of the argument before the High Court, the learned counsel for the parties referred to Rule 48-A of the Rules, of course, placing their own interpretation. Since the said Rule is material and has bearing on the question to be determined, it is extracted below :- "48-A.Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. Provided that this sub-rule shall not apply to a Government servant, including scientist or technical expert who is - (i) on assignments under the Indian Technical and Economic Co-operation (ITEC) Programme of the Ministry of External Affairs and other aid programmes. (ii) Posted abroad in foreign based offices of the Ministries/Departments. (iii) On a specific contract assignment to a foreign Government, unless, after having been transferred to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority; Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period.” 32. Under sub-rule (1) of the said Rule, at any time after completion of 20 years' qualifying service, a Government servant could give notice of not less than three months' in writing to the appointing authority for retirement from service. Under sub-rule (2), voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. In the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A, it is clearly stated that in case the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. 33. In the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A, it is clearly stated that in case the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. 33. It is clear from sub-rule (2) of the Rule that the appointing authority is required to accept the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1). It is open to the appointing authority to refuse also on whatever grounds available to it but such refusal has to be before the expiry of the period specified in the notice.The proviso to sub-rule (2) is clear and certain in its terms. If the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement sought for become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. In this case, admittedly, the appointing authority did not refuse to grant the permission for retirement to Nikka Ram before the expiry of the period specified in the notice dated 5- 12-1994. The learned senior counsel for the respondent argued that the acceptance of voluntary retirement by appointing authority in all cases is mandatory. In the absence of such express acceptance the Government servant continues to be in service. In support of this submission, he drew our attention to Rule 56(k) of Fundamental Rules. He also submitted that acceptance may be on a later date, that is, even after the expiry of the period specified in the notice and the retirement could be effective from the date specified in the notice. Since the proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A is clear in itself and the said Rule 48-A is self-contained, in our opinion, it is unnecessary to look to other provisions, moreso in the light of law laid down by this Court. An argument that acceptance can be even long after the date of the expiry of the period specified in the notice and that the voluntary retirement may become effective from the date specified in the notice, will lead to anomalous situation. An argument that acceptance can be even long after the date of the expiry of the period specified in the notice and that the voluntary retirement may become effective from the date specified in the notice, will lead to anomalous situation. Take a case, if an application for voluntary retirement is accepted few years' later from the date specified in the notice and voluntary retirement becomes operative from the date of expiry of the notice period itself,what would be the position or status of such a Government Servant during the period from the date of expiry of the notice period up to the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement by the appointing authority? One either continues in service or does not continue in service. It cannot be both that the voluntary retirement could be effective from the date of expiry of the period mentioned in the notice and still a Government servant could continue in service till the voluntary retirement is accepted. The proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 48-A of the Rules does not admit such situation. 34. This Court in a recent judgment in the case of State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293 , after referring to few earlier decisions of this Court touching the very point in controversy in para 13 of the judgment has held thus :- "13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retire is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma case ( AIR 1978 SC 17 ) by the relevant rules and there is no provision in the rules to withhold permission in certain contingencies the voluntary retirement comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the notice. If, however, as in B.J. Shelat case ( AIR 1978 SC 1109 : 1978 Lab IC 824) and as in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case ( AIR 1995 SC 176 ) the authority concerned is empowered to withhold permission to retire if certain conditions exist, viz. in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmental enquiry is pending or is contemplated, 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. in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmental enquiry is pending or is contemplated, 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 posting 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." 12. In light of the above and as provided by Rule 48 of the Rules, retirement asked for by he petitioner by letter dated 30.6.2005 could be said to have come into effect from the date of expiry of the notice period i.e. from 30.9.2005. 13. Contention raised by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Ashar that since the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet dated 18.8.2005 before expiry of three months of the notice period, the petitioner was not entitled for voluntary retirement on expiry of the notice period cannot be accepted. In the Rules, there is no prohibition or restraint against voluntary retirement taking effect on expiry of three months’ notice period on initiation of departmental inquiry within the said period. It is not the case that the petitioner was first served with the charge-sheet for initiation of the departmental inquiry and thereafter, to avoid departmental inquiry, the petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement. 14. In the case of State of Haryana and others v. S.K. Singhal reported in (1999)4 SCC 293 , the Hon'ble supreme Court decided the issue of voluntary retirement of an employee in the context of Rule 5.32(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules (Vol.II), which reads as under:- "Rule 5.32 (B) : (1) At any time a Government employee has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service. However, a Government employee may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reason therefor. However, a Government employee may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of less than three months giving reason therefor. On receipt of a request, the appointing authority may consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the Government employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the period of notice of three months. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority subject to Rule 2.2 of Pb. C.S.R. Vol. II : Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1) supra, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period : Provided further that before a Government employee gives notice of voluntary retirement with reference to sub-rule (1) he should satisfy himself by means of a reference to the appropriate authority that he has, in fact, completed twenty years service qualifying for pension." 15. The proviso to sub Rule (2) of Rule 5.32(B) provides that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant permission for retirement before expiry of the period specified in sub-Rule (1), retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. However, such sub-Rule (2) is subject to Rule 2.2 of the said Rules, which reads as under:- "Rule 2.2(a) Future good conduct is an implied condition of every grant of a pension. The (appointing authority) reserve to itself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it if the pensioner be convicted of serious crime or be guilty of grave misconduct. The decision of the (appointing authority) on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of pension under this rule shall be final and conclusive." 16. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no provision like Rule 2.2(a) in the Rules under which the petitioner asked for voluntary retirement. The decision of the (appointing authority) on any question of withholding or withdrawing the whole or any part of pension under this rule shall be final and conclusive." 16. So far as the present case is concerned, there is no provision like Rule 2.2(a) in the Rules under which the petitioner asked for voluntary retirement. In the above-said case, construing Rule 2.2(a) as existed, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held and observed in para 8 as under:- “8. It will be noticed that under Rule 5.32B, a Government employee who has completed 20 years of qualifying service may, by giving notice of not less than 3 months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. There is provision for requesting for relaxation of the notice period of 3 months and for consideration thereof. As to what the appointing authority is to do is governed squarely by sub-clause (2). That sub-clause states that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-clause (1)"shall" require acceptance by the appointing authority subject to Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Regulation (Vol. II). Acceptance of the request is subject to Rule 2.2 of the Rules. But the proviso to sub-clause (2) of Rule 5.32B states that if the permission to retire is not refused within the period specified in sub-clause (1), the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the period. Therefore, it is clear that if a person has completed 20 years qualifying service and has given a notice under Rule 5.32B of 3 months (for if his request for relaxation of 3 months is accepted), then the request "shall" be accepted subject to invoking the provision of Rule 2.2 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules (Vol. II). Under Rule 2.2, the "future good conduct" of an employee is an implied condition of every grant of pension. In other words, what all it means is that even if the acceptance of the voluntary retirement is mandatory, there is an obligation cast on the retired employee to maintain good conduct after such retirement. The words "future good conduct" mean good conduct after retirement. If the employee does not continue to maintain good conduct after retirement, then the Government can withhold or withdraw the pension or a part of it in case he is convicted of serious crime or in case he be guilty of grave misconduct. The words "future good conduct" mean good conduct after retirement. If the employee does not continue to maintain good conduct after retirement, then the Government can withhold or withdraw the pension or a part of it in case he is convicted of serious crime or in case he be guilty of grave misconduct. Such decision to withhold or withdraw the whole or part of pension would be final and conclusive, that is to say, so far as the governmental hierarchy is concerned. It will be noticed that Rule 2.2 does not obstruct the voluntary retirement to come into force automatically on expiry of 3 months and it only enables withdrawal or withholding of pension subject to certain conditions, to a retired employee.” 17. Thus, even when Rule 2.2 provided for reservation to the Government to withhold or to withdraw pension or any part of it if an employee is alleged to have committed serious crime or guilty of grave misconduct, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Rule 2.2 did not obstruct voluntary retirement to come into force automatically on expiry of three months and it only enables withdrawal or withholding of pension subject to certain conditions to a retired employee. 18. In the said decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further held and observed in para 18 as under:- “18. In the case before us sub-clause (1) of Rule 5.32B contemplates a 'notice to retire' and not a request seeking permission to retire. The further "request" contemplated by the sub-section is only for seeking exemption from the 3 months period. The proviso to sub-clause (2) makes a positive provision that "where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in sub-rule (1), the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. The case before us stands on a stronger footing than Dinesh Chandra Sangma's case ( AIR 1978 SC 17 ) so far as the employee is concerned. As already stated Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II only deals with a situation of withholding or withdrawing pension to a person who has already retired.” 19. The case before us stands on a stronger footing than Dinesh Chandra Sangma's case ( AIR 1978 SC 17 ) so far as the employee is concerned. As already stated Rule 2.2 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II only deals with a situation of withholding or withdrawing pension to a person who has already retired.” 19. As stated above, the Rules do not provide for any obstruction or prohibition against voluntary retirement coming into force automatically on expiry of three months where the departmental inquiry was pending against employee seeking voluntary retirement in absence of refusal communicated by the appointing authority to such employee. Therefore, though the departmental inquiry was initiated after the petitioner served three months' notice, the same could not postpone the voluntary retirement taking effect on expiry of three months' notice period in absence of communication of refusal to permit for voluntary retirement by the appointing authority to the petitioner on the ground of pending inquiry against him. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that since the appointing authority has not refused to grant permission for voluntary retirement to the petitioner before expiry of the period specified in the notice, retirement of the petitioner had become effective from 30.9.2005. 20. The consequence of the above conclusion reached by this Court would render the subsequent action of the respondents of service of charge-sheet for the allegation of remaining absent after 30.9.2005, ineffective in the eye of law. It is required to be noted that the petitioner clearly indicated to the respondents that he would not attend the service after effective date of voluntary retirement. However, non-attendance of the duty was taken as unauthorized absence and the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on such ground. If the petitioner was entitled for voluntary retirement with effect from 30.9.2005, as held above, the petitioner was justified in not attending his duty after 30.9.2005 and therefore, there was no question of charge-sheeting the petitioner with allegation of unauthorized absence. Therefore, the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner on such ground cannot stand scrutiny of law and is required to be quashed and set aside. 21. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. It is held and declared that the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.9.2005 as per the notice dated 30.6.2005 at Annexure-A for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Rules. 21. For the reasons stated above, the petition is allowed. It is held and declared that the petitioner has retired from service with effect from 30.9.2005 as per the notice dated 30.6.2005 at Annexure-A for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of the Rules. The respondents are directed to finalise the pension case of the petitioner and confer upon him all the benefits of pension and other retiral dues within THREE MONTHS from the date of receipt of this order. Impugned charge-sheet dated 2.12.2006 at Annexure-I issued to the petitioner is also quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the extent stated above. Petition allowed.