Tinlianthang Vaiphei, J.:- The legality of the Call-back Notice dated 25.7.2007 (Annexure-B) issued by the Assistant Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force, NF Railway, Lumding, asking the petitioner to resume duty immediately otherwise necessary DAR action would be initiated again him and of the subsequent Call-back Notice dated 17.8.2007 issued by the same authority to the same effect, is under challenge in this writ petition. I have heard Mr. RC Saikia, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. UK Nair, the learned standing counsel, NF Railways, for the respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner, as projected by him in the writ petition, is that he joined the Railway Protection Force of the NF Railways as Constable in the year 1973. From the year 2003 onwards, he has been suffering from deadly disease of Tuberculosis, for which he had to avail of medical leave from 10.3.2003 to 1.1.2006. Leave was granted to him and he was allowed to resume his service on 1.1.2006. Again on 7.3.2006, due to serious ailments, he was hospitalized for long period and in this circumstance, he was compelled to submit an appeal to the respondent authorities to allow him to go on voluntary retirement under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme of the Railway authorities with effect from 31.5.2006. But the respondent authorities instead of accepting the said application for voluntary retirement transferred him to some other place and repeatedly threatened him with disciplinary action unless he resumed his duty immediately. On 24.12.2011, he received a major stroke, which made him become paralyzed, and has not been able to move out from his bed till now. 3. He was subsequently discharged from Dispur Hospital, Guwahati, on 19.1.2012 and he is no longer able to write or put even his signature. However, the respondent authorities remained as adamant as ever and decided to initiate departmental proceedings against him under the Discipline and Appeal Rules and from the year 2007 onwards, they have been threatening to start such proceedings against him. The petitioner has not been getting his service benefits as well as his salary from 2006 onwards. Aggrieved by this, the writ petition has been filed by him. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent authorities by filing their counter-affidavit. The petitioner has not been getting his service benefits as well as his salary from 2006 onwards. Aggrieved by this, the writ petition has been filed by him. 4. The writ petition is opposed by the respondent authorities by filing their counter-affidavit. The stance taken by the respondent authorities is that the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from duty w.e.f. 10.4.2003 to 10.2.2006, and no intimation was given to the authorities about the reason for his absence from duty nor was any application ever submitted by him for grant of leave. Such unauthorized absence for long period led them to issue the charge-sheet dated 24.3.2006 upon the petitioner, which was received by him on 5.7.2007 and his representation thereon was received by the authorities on 20.7.2007. The competent authority on consideration of his case awarded a minor penalty of withholding of the next increment of the petitioner for a period of one year with NCE: the period of absence was treated as leave without pay vide the Office Order No. 6/2007 (Minor) dated 22-7-2007. According to the respondents, the petitioner was vide order dated 6.3.2006 transferred in the exigencies of service, and was instructed to report to his new place of posting on 7.3.2006. The petitioner, being a member of the disciplined force, ought to have responded to the directions issued by his superiors but the petitioner ignored the same and continued to remain on an unauthorized absence. The answering respondents state that on account of the unauthorized absence of the petitioner, they proceeded to issue two call-back notices dated 25.7.2007 and 17.8.2007 requiring him to resume his duty within the period mentioned therein. The application for voluntary retirement as submitted by the petitioner was considered by the respondent authorities and the same was decided to be acted upon only after expiry of the currency of the penalty imposed upon him vide the order dated 22.7.2007. He never preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty awarded against him. The petitioner was duly intimated about all these aspects of the matter through the call-back notices, but he never responded to said call-back notices and continued to remain unauthorizedly absent. These are the sum and substance of the case of the respondent authorities. 5. He never preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty awarded against him. The petitioner was duly intimated about all these aspects of the matter through the call-back notices, but he never responded to said call-back notices and continued to remain unauthorizedly absent. These are the sum and substance of the case of the respondent authorities. 5. The petitioner filed his reply affidavit wherein he stated that the period of his unauthorized leave w.e.f. 10.4.2003 to 24.3.2006 on medical ground has been considered and treated as leave without pay and further punished by withholding two increments by the respondent authorities and as such the question of directing him to join duty on 7.3.2006 is contrary to law. There was a typing mistake in his application dated 24.2.2006 for voluntary retirement wherein the words "domestic ground" ought to have been substituted by "illness", which was subsequently explained to the authorities. The fact that the application for voluntary retirement w.e.f. 31.5.2006 had been received by the respondent authorities on 24.2.2006, is proved by their own letter dated 3.11.2011, which was in reply to the Pleader Notice issued by him and, as such, the imposition of disciplinary punishment upon him is most arbitrary and illegal. A sick person suffering from Tuberculosis and Jaundice cannot be expected to face departmental proceedings: it was due to the said diseases, he could not attend office from 10.4.2003 to 24.3.2006. According to the petitioner, though he had been on unauthorized absence from duty from 10-4-2003 to 24-3-2006 for which he was already awarded the punishment for nearly three years by not paying a single paise besides imposing a penalty of withholding two increments. 6. I have carefully gone through the pleadings of the parties. I have also given my anxious consideration to the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the rival parties. There is no dispute, nor can there be any dispute, that the notice of voluntary retirement was served by the petitioner upon the respondent authorities on 24-2-2006, which was to be effective from 31-5-2006. As per the Rules, a clear three months' notice is to be given by an employee to avail of voluntary retirement. In the instant case, since the petitioner gave the notice on 24-2-2006, three months would have expired on or about 24-5-2006, but he wanted that his retirement should be with effect from 4-5-2006. As per the Rules, a clear three months' notice is to be given by an employee to avail of voluntary retirement. In the instant case, since the petitioner gave the notice on 24-2-2006, three months would have expired on or about 24-5-2006, but he wanted that his retirement should be with effect from 4-5-2006. Be that as it may, what is significant to note is that the notice was not accepted within the next three months. While the employer reserves its right under the rules to compulsorily retire a Government servant, even against his wish, there is a corresponding right of the Government employee to voluntarily retire him from service by giving his employer three months' notice in writing. Normally, there is no question of acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement by the employer when the Government servant exercises his right under the rules. 7. The Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. S.K. Singhal, (1999) 4 SCC 293 identified different rules of voluntary retirement applicable in various government departments by giving notice, say, for three months. Some rules are couched in language which results in automatic retirement on expiry of period specified in employees' notice whereas in some rules, the language makes it clear that even on expiry of the period specified in the notice, retirement is not automatic and an express order granting permission is required to be communicated. Master-servant relationship in the latter type of rules continues after the period specified in notice till acceptance is communicated; refusal of permission can also be communicated after the notice period and the employee continues to be in service. Cases like Dinesh Chandra Sangma (1977) 4 SCC 441 , B.J. Shelat (1978) 2 SCC 202 and Sayed Mazaffar Mir 1995 Supp(1) SCC 76 belong to former category where it is held that upon expiry of notice period, voluntary retirement takes effect automatically as no order of refusal is passed within the notice period. On the other hand, Suman Behari Sharma case (1996) 4 SCC 584 , belongs to second category. After reviewing the earlier case-laws, the Apex Court in AK Singhal (supra) accepted the views taken in Dinesh Chandra (supra), B.J. Shelat (supra) and Sayed Muzaffar Mir (supra). The relevant observations are found at paragraph 13, 14 and 19 of the judgment, which are as under: 13. After reviewing the earlier case-laws, the Apex Court in AK Singhal (supra) accepted the views taken in Dinesh Chandra (supra), B.J. Shelat (supra) and Sayed Muzaffar Mir (supra). The relevant observations are found at paragraph 13, 14 and 19 of the judgment, which are as under: 13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retirement is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma case 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 and as in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case 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. What is further needed is that the authority concerned must pass a positive 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. 14. Before referring to the second category of cases where the rules require a positive acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement and communication thereof it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Baljit Singh (Dr) v. State of Haryana strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants and to Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia. The former case arose under Rule 5.32(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. That rule extracted earlier contains an express provision in the proviso to sub-rule (2) that the retirement takes effect automatically if refusal is not communicated within 3 months. In that case, when the employee gave notice for voluntary retirement on 20-9-1993, criminal cases were pending against him. The former case arose under Rule 5.32(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. That rule extracted earlier contains an express provision in the proviso to sub-rule (2) that the retirement takes effect automatically if refusal is not communicated within 3 months. In that case, when the employee gave notice for voluntary retirement on 20-9-1993, criminal cases were pending against him. After expiry of 3 months, on 25-2-1994, the competent authority declined to accept the notice. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, however, held that the voluntary retirement did not come about automatically on the expiry of the notice period but that it could take effect only upon acceptance of the notice by the Government and that the acceptance must also be communicated and till then the jural relationship of master and servant continues. This Court referred only to the decision of the two-Judge Bench in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case and stated that that case was to be confined to its own facts. The two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baljit Singh case did not notice that there were two three-Judge Bench cases in Dinesh Chandra Sangma and B.J. Shelat taking the view under similar rules that a positive order was to be passed within the notice period withholding permission to retire and that the said order was also to be communicated to the employee during the said period. By stating that an order of acceptance of the notice was necessary and that the said acceptance must be communicated to the employee and till that was done the jural relationship continued and there was no automatic snapping thereof on the expiry of 3 months' period, the two-Judge Bench, in our view, has gone contrary to the two three-Judge Bench cases which were not brought to its notice. In the above circumstances, we follow the two three-Judge Bench cases for deciding the case before us. * * * 19. For the aforesaid reasons, we follow the two three-Judge judgments in Dinesh Chandra Sangma and B.J. Shelat and the two-Judge judgments in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case in preference to the two-Judge judgment in Dr. Baljit Singh case." 8. Incidentally, Sayed Muzaffar Mir case was rendered in the context of Rule 1802(b)(1) of the Railway Establishment Code, which is in pari materia with the old Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. Baljit Singh case." 8. Incidentally, Sayed Muzaffar Mir case was rendered in the context of Rule 1802(b)(1) of the Railway Establishment Code, which is in pari materia with the old Rule 56(c) of the Fundamental Rules. In the State of UP v. Luxmi Kant Shukla, (2011) 9 SCC 532 , the Apex Court made the following observations in the context of voluntary retirement: "24. The High Court, however, has taken the view in the impugned judgment that it was incumbent upon the appointing authority to inform the respondent before the expiry of the notice period of three months that his request for voluntary retirement has not been accepted and the High Court has therefore directed that a fresh decision be taken by the State Government on the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement after it found that the Chief Minister had not put her signature on the order rejecting the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement. This view taken by the High Court, in our considered opinion, is contrary to the plain language of the proviso which states that in the case of "a contemplated disciplinary proceeding" the government servant shall be informed before the expiry of his notice that it has not been accepted. 25. As we have already found, this is not a case of "a contemplated disciplinary proceeding", but a case of disciplinary proceeding which was already pending when the respondent made the request for voluntary retirement on 28-5-2009 and the finding of the High Court that the respondent was required to be informed before the expiry of his notice of voluntary retirement that it had not been accepted is erroneous. In view of our finding that in a case where a disciplinary proceeding was pending, the relevant proviso to FRs 56(c) and (d) does not require the decision of the appointing authority to be communicated to the government servant before the expiry of the period of notice of voluntary retirement, it is not necessary for us to examine further whether the order dated 16-12-2009 rejecting the request of the respondent for voluntary retirement without the signature of the Chief Minister was valid or not. 26. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir cited by the respondent does not apply to the facts of the present case. 26. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir cited by the respondent does not apply to the facts of the present case. In that case, Rule 1802(b) of the Railway Establishment Code provided that the railway servant could retire voluntarily from service by serving three months' notice and a railway servant by his letter dated 22-7-1985 gave a three months' notice to the Railways to retire from service. After the three months' period expired on 21-10-1985, the order of removal of the railway servant was passed on 4-11-1985. On these facts the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Mumbai Bench, held that since the period of notice of voluntary retirement had expired on 21-10-1985, the order of removal was non est in the eye of the law and this Court did not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal. 27. In the present case, the relevant proviso to clauses (c) and (d) of FR 56 was explicit that in case of a disciplinary proceeding which is pending, the notice of voluntary retirement cannot be "effective" until the appointing authority accepted the notice for voluntary retirement. We have already found that when the request for voluntary retirement was made by the respondent on 28-5-2009, the disciplinary proceeding was pending against him. Therefore, the notice of voluntary retirement was not effective until a positive order of acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement was passed by the State Government. 28. As has been held by this Court in State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal cited by Mr. Rao, that if the right to voluntary retirement is conferred on the employee in absolute terms by the relevant rules and there is no provision in the rules to withhold permission in certain contingencies, then voluntary retirement will come into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the notice, but if such right to voluntary retirement of an employee, who is under suspension or who is facing disciplinary proceedings, is not conferred in absolute terms but is contingent upon the permission by the appointing authority, the notice of voluntary retirement does not take effect until a positive order is passed by the appointing authority. 29. 29. In this case, we have found that under the relevant proviso to clauses (c) and (d) of FR 56, the right of a government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding is pending to voluntarily retire from service is contingent upon the order of acceptance being passed by the appointing authority. Since, no such order of acceptance was passed by the appointing authority in the present case, the respondent continued in service even after the period of notice of three months expired in August 2009 and his services were terminated only with the order of dismissal passed on 7-9-2009." 9. What is obvious from the decision of Sayed Muzaffar Mir case is that even if a departmental enquiry is pending against the Government servant, or the Government servant is placed under suspension, it is mandatory for the Railway authorities to pass an appropriate order, either of withholding permission to retire or retaining him in service. So, despite the right given to competent authority in this regard, if such right is not so exercised, the service of the incumbent cannot be retained after the expiry of the notice period, in this case, three months. In the instant case, as already noticed, the three months' notice of voluntary retirement was given by the petitioner on 24-2-2006, but the Railway authorities did not take any decision within the next three months. Nor was any departmental enquiry initiated against him during this period. But what they did was to issue the "Call Back Notice" dated 25-7-2006 upon the petitioner indicating therein that voluntary retirement was to be accepted after completion of punishment in DAR case and requiring him to resume duty immediately on receipt of the letter within 2 days otherwise necessary DAR action would be initiated against him. This clearly shows that no departmental enquiry was pending against him during the three months' notice period. The same warning was repeated in the second "Call Back Notice" dated 17-8-2007. The charge sheet purportedly issued on 24-3-2006 was received by the petitioner only on 5-7-2007 as evident from the Officer Order No. 6/2007 (Minor) annexed at Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the Railway authorities. The same warning was repeated in the second "Call Back Notice" dated 17-8-2007. The charge sheet purportedly issued on 24-3-2006 was received by the petitioner only on 5-7-2007 as evident from the Officer Order No. 6/2007 (Minor) annexed at Annexure 1 to the counter-affidavit filed by the Railway authorities. A combined reading of the said Annexure-1, Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 to the counter-affidavit unmistakably makes clear that as late as 25-7-2007, no departmental enquiry was pending against the petitioner during the period of three months' notice of voluntary retirement given by him. Even if it is assumed that a departmental enquiry was pending also, it is beyond any shadow of doubt that the Railway authorities never took any decision to accept or reject the notice of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner during the three months' notice period. Consequently, the facts of this case are squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case. In the view that I have taken, the Railway authorities have no authority to issue both the Call Back Notices dated 25-7-2007 (Annexure-B) and date 17-8-2007 (Annexure-C) upon the petitioner, and the same are liable to be quashed. The retention of the service of the petitioner after the expiry of the three months' notice given by him on 26-2-2006 is, therefore, illegal and cannot be sustained in law. 10. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned call back notices dated 25-7-2007 and 17-8-2006 at Annexure-B and Annexure-C respectively are, therefore, quashed. The voluntary retirement of the petitioner from service shall be deemed to have been accepted by the Railway authorities with effect from 26-5-2006 or 31-5-2006, as the case may be. An order to this effect shall be passed by them within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. The Railway authorities are further directed to release the past salaries payable to him under the revised pay scale, pension, gratuity, General Provident Fund and other monetary benefits admissible to him under the rule within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. No costs. 11. The Railway authorities are further directed to release the past salaries payable to him under the revised pay scale, pension, gratuity, General Provident Fund and other monetary benefits admissible to him under the rule within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this judgment. No costs. 11. Before parting, I am constrained to observe that the conduct of the petitioner does not actually deserve any of the reliefs granted to him herein above, but then, such benefits have now been crystallised into legal rights, which cannot be denied to him. To do so would be to act contrary to law. Thus, instead of awarding penalty to the petitioner, the Railway authorities, due to non-application of mind by them or due to their bungling incompetence, are going to give him a reward. To borrow from Sir Winston Churchill, the petitioner, instead of snatching his victuals from the table, has been content to have them served to him course by course!