Judgment : The petitioner is aggrieved against the order of the first respondent dated 19.07.2013 in denying permission sought for voluntary retirement. Consequently, he is seeking for a direction to the first respondent to accept the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement and relieve him from service. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: He entered the service as Grade II Constable on 13.10.1981. He was promoted as Grade I Constable, Head Constable and Special Sub Inspector of Police as per his merit and seniority. Considering his old age ailments and unfavourable family circumstances, he wanted to seek voluntary retirement and for such purpose, he submitted an application to the first respondent on 17.05.2013. However, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's request through the impugned order on the ground that an enquiry under Order 151 of the Police Standing Order is pending against the petitioner. The first respondent, without considering the fact that the petitioner has not committed any offence and that no departmental or criminal proceedings are pending against him, had erroneously passed the impugned order. Hence, the present writ petition is filed. 3. The respondents filed a counter affidavit wherein it is stated as follows: The petitioner is now working as Special Sub Inspector of Police. While he was working at Perunazhi Police Station, on 21.05.2008, a mentally challenged person entered the police station and damaged certain articles. The petitioner and another Head Constable pacified him by using minimum force. The said mentally challenged person was handed over to his father on the very same day. However on 22.05.2008, the said person died. Based on the complaint of one M.K.S.Vasan, alleging that the deceased was tortured and assaulted by the police personnel and the death was due to such torture, the Revenue Divisional Officer conducted an enquiry under Police Standing Order 151 and sent his report to the Government. Based on the findings of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the Government ordered in G.O.Ms.No.270, Public (Law and Order-E) Department dated 26.03.2011 to take departmental action against the police personnel who were on duty at Perunazhi Police Station on 21.05.2008 at 5.00 p.m. Accordingly, draft charge memos under Rule 3(b) sequel to PSO 151 enquiry against the eight police personnel including the petitioner were sent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ramanathapuram for approval. The Deputy Inspector General of Police instructed to prepare charge memo against the police personnel. On analysing the enquiry report of the Revenue Divisional Officer, it was found that the petitioner and other police personnel were actually involved in the incident. Therefore, a proposal was sent to the Director General of Police, Chennai through proceedings dated 26.06.2013, seeking to deal with them on a charge under Rule 3(b) of the Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955. The orders from the Director General of Police is still awaited. Meanwhile, the petitioner submitted an application seeking for voluntary retirement. His request was rejected through the impugned order, since grave charges sequel to PSO 151 is under contemplation against the petitioner. 4. Mr.R.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that till this day no charge memo was issued against the petitioner and therefore, his application for voluntary retirement cannot be rejected. He further submitted that the petitioner having complied with the conditions stipulated under Rule 56(1)(e) of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamilnadu Government, he is entitled to seek voluntary retirement. It is his further contention that even issuing of a charge memo after notice given by the petitioner under Rule 56(1) will not disentitle the petitioner to seek voluntary retirement. Contemplation of the departmental proceedings means only by issuing a charge memo and therefore, the stage before issuing such charge memo cannot be termed as contemplation of departmental proceedings, is his last submission. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on an unreported decision of the Division Bench made in W.P.No.24799 of 2009 dated 20.11.2013, an unreported decision of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.10756 of 2012 dated 26.07.2012, unreported decision made in W.P.No.34253 of 2006 of the learned Single Judge dated 17.08.2010. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, after reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, has further submitted that the petitioner's request was rightly rejected, since he has not satisfied the first condition, viz., Rule 56(3)(e)(i) of the above said Rules. He further placed the proceedings dated 26.06.2013 issued by the Superintendent of Police of Ramanathapuram District, requesting permission from the DIG of Police to proceed against the petitioner and others under Rule 3(b) of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955. 6. He further placed the proceedings dated 26.06.2013 issued by the Superintendent of Police of Ramanathapuram District, requesting permission from the DIG of Police to proceed against the petitioner and others under Rule 3(b) of Tamilnadu Police Subordinate Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1955. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this court. 7. The petitioner is presently working as Special Sub Inspector of Police and seeks for voluntary retirement. For such purpose, he made a request on 17.05.2013, which came to be rejected through the impugned order dated 19.07.2013. The reason for rejection is that proceedings under PSO 151 is pending against the petitioner. Whether such reasoning is justifiable or not is the core issue to be considered and decided in this case. 8. Before going into the factual aspects of the matter, let me consider the relevant rule dealing with voluntary retirement procedure. Chapter IX of the Fundamental Rules of the Tamilnadu Government deals with retirement. Rule 56(3) of the Chapter IX of the said Rules deals with voluntary retirement. As per Sub Rule (3), a Government Servant who has attained the age of 50 years or has completed 20 years of qualifying service, may retire from service by giving a notice not less than three months in writing and such three months notice shall be reckoned from the date of receipt of notice by the appointing authority. Sub Section (e) of Rule 56(3) further contemplates that the said notice of voluntary retirement given by the Government Servant shall be accepted by the appointing authority, provided the conditions stipulated therein are satisfied. In this case, there is no quarrel about the notice issued by the petitioner under Rule 56(3)(a). Therefore the only question is whether the petitioner has satisfied the conditions stipulated under Rule 56(3)(e) of the said Rules or not. In this case, there is no quarrel about the notice issued by the petitioner under Rule 56(3)(a). Therefore the only question is whether the petitioner has satisfied the conditions stipulated under Rule 56(3)(e) of the said Rules or not. For proper appreciation of the said Rule, the same is extracted hereunder: Rule 56(3)(e): “Notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government Servant shall be accepted by the appointing authority, subject to the following conditions being satisfied namely:- (i) that no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending against the Government Servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty; (ii) that no prosecution is contemplated or pending in a Court of Law against the Government Servant concerned; (iii) that a report from the Director of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption has been obtained to the effect that no enquiry is contemplated or pending against the Government Servant concerned; (iv) that no dues which cannot be recovered from his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity are pending to be recovered from the Government Servant concerned; and (v) that there is no contractual obligation to serve the Government during the period in which the Government Servant concerned seeks to retire voluntarily.” 9. Five conditions are stipulated under the above said Rule to be satisfied by the Government Servant who seeks voluntary retirement. In so far as the present case is concerned, even though a charge memo is not issued to the petitioner so far, still the fact remains that the department is contemplating a disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and for which purpose, the first respondent has addressed the Director General of Police on 26.06.2013, seeking permission to proceed against the petitioner departmentally under Rule 3(b) of the above said Rules. Rule 56 (3)(e)(i) reads that a voluntary retirement given by a Government Servant shall be accepted only when no disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending against such Government Servant for the imposition of major penalty. In this case, no doubt, the proceedings of the first respondent seeking permission from the Director General of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was sent subsequent to the application submitted by the petitioner. In this case, no doubt, the proceedings of the first respondent seeking permission from the Director General of Police to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner was sent subsequent to the application submitted by the petitioner. But at the same time, that was not the first attempt of the Department to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and on the other hand, admittedly, the Revenue Divisional Officer has conducted an enquiry and submitted a report as early as on 19.08.2008, in respect of the petitioner and others which followed by several interdepartmental communications and proceedings during the years 2011, 2012 and 2013 as could be seen from the reference cited in the proceedings of the first respondent dated 26.06.2013. Therefore, it is crystal clear that even before receiving application from the petitioner, the department has commenced its process to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. Therefore, the contemplation of disciplinary proceedings was very much in force, even before the receipt of the petitioner's application dated 17.05.2013. Therefore, I am of the firm view that the petitioner, having not satisfied the first condition under Rule 56(3)(e)(i) itself, he is not entitled to seek for voluntary retirement and the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that contemplation of disciplinary proceedings commences only after the issuance of charge memo. I am unable to appreciate the said contention. Needless to say that contemplation means a probable intention to do certain act and not doing the act itself. Therefore, it cannot be said that contemplation begins only after issuance of charge memo. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the unreported decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench made in W.P.No.24799 of 2009 dated 20.11.2013 is also not helpful to the petitioner for the simple reason that the issue involved in that case is as to whether the deemed acceptance is available to the applicant therein or not, if the authority, before whom such request was made, has not either rejected or accepted such request within the expiry of three months notice period. Such is not the issue in this case. Therefore, I find no relevance of the above decision in support of the petitioner. 11. Such is not the issue in this case. Therefore, I find no relevance of the above decision in support of the petitioner. 11. Likewise, the other unreported decision made in W.P.No.10756 of 2012 dated 26.07.2012 and relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is also not helpful to the petitioner in view of the fact that the rejection in that case was made on the ground that large number of vacancies were available in the Department. Such reason was found by the learned Judge as not a ground for rejection as contemplated under F.R.56(3). As I have pointed out earlier, the petitioner having not satisfied Rule 56(3)(e)(i), the above decision is also not helpful to the petitioner as the same is factually distinguishable. 12. The third unreported decision made in W.P.No.34253 of 2006 dated 17.08.2010 is cited to contend that the initiation of departmental proceedings after one year from the date of submission of the application for voluntary retirement is unsustainable in law. Needless to say that facts and circumstances of each case has to be considered and decided independently. It appears that the departmental proceedings was initiated in that case after one year from the date of submission of the application. But the facts of the present case would disclose that it is not so herein and on the other hand, the contemplation of departmental proceedings has commenced from the year 2008 onwards by appointing the Revenue Divisional Officer and getting his report, which came to be forwarded to the Government in the year 2011 itself which in turn ordered through G.O.Ms.No.270 dated 26.03.2011 to take departmental action against the police personnel including the petitioner. Therefore, the very passing of the Government Order No.270 dated 26.03.2011, admittedly much earlier to the application submitted by the petitioner would satisfy that the petitioner has not satisfied the conditions stipulated under Rule 56(3)(e) of Fundamental Rules and consequently, he is not entitled for the relief sought for. Accordingly, I find no merits in this writ petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to commence and complete the departmental proceedings within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.