JUDGMENT : N. PAUL VASANTHA KUMAR, J. 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (herein after referred as "the Tribunal") dated 18.12.2015 made in OA No. 061/00065/2014, wherein the petitioner challenged the memorandum of charges issued to him dated 17.07.2014 and the consequential action appointing enquiry officer by communication dated 05.09.2014 and for direction to release all his retiral benefits along with interest. The Tribunal dismissed the original application against which this writ petition is filed. The case of the petitioner both before the Tribunal as well as before this Court is that he was appointed as Teacher in Education Department of the State of Jammu and Kashmir on 01.03.1977. After the establishment of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (Schools) in the year 1986 by Ministry of Human Resource Department of School Education and Literacy, Government of India, an advertisement was issued inviting applications for appointment of Trained Graduate Teachers in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, the petitioner applied and after interview he was selected. No objection certificate was issued by the Education Department of Jammu & Kashmir State for deputation and thereafter the petitioner joined as trained graduate teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda on 28.11.1986. Subsequently on the basis of NOC issued by the State Education Department he was permanently absorbed in the Navodaya Vidyalaya School w.e.f. 01.05.1989. The petitioner was promoted based on his merit and ability as postgraduate teacher (Lecturer) by respondent No. 4 in the month of May, 1995. Again the petitioner was promoted as Vice Principal by Respondent No. 3 by order dated 02.07.2013 and he was posted as Vice Principal in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Chamba (U.P.). Thereafter by a modified order dated 23.07.2013, the petitioner was posted in JNV Samba (J&K) and he was asked to join by 05.08.2013. The petitioner was again posted as in-charge Principal by the 4th respondent on 06.09.2013 by transferring him to JNV, Doda. The petitioner was to retire on superannuation on 31.07.2014 as he was reaching the age of superannuation and having gained rich experience as teacher, he was offered the post of Principal in Delhi Public School, Kathua, a private school and he was asked to join in the month of March 2014. The petitioner was to retire on superannuation on 31.07.2014 as he was reaching the age of superannuation and having gained rich experience as teacher, he was offered the post of Principal in Delhi Public School, Kathua, a private school and he was asked to join in the month of March 2014. It was also stated that if the petitioner fails to join by the end of March, 2014, the Management would select the 2nd candidate in merit. After getting the said communication from the management of the said school, the petitioner gave one month's notice on 27.01.2014 (regarding his intention to resign) to Respondent No. 4 through proper channel. Subsequently the 4th respondent asked the petitioner to submit a resignation letter which was submitted on 25.02.2014 as requested by Respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner contacted the 4th respondent, who directed him to handover the charge to the senior most teacher w.e.f. 28.02.2014. Thereafter the petitioner contacted the Additional Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional office, Chandigarh (Cluster Incharge, J&K State), who directed the petitioner to handover the charge to Sh. S.K. Sharma, postgraduate teacher (maths) on 28.02.2014. Pursuant to the said direction, the petitioner handed over the charge of Principal to the said postgraduate teacher (maths), namely, S.K. Sharma, which was also forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner-Chairman, VMC, Doda for information, Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional Office Chandigarh, Assistant Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, Regional office, Chandigarh and thereafter no communication was received from any of the respondents. The petitioner also joined in the said private school in March, 2014 and for claiming his retiral benefits i.e. gratuity, leave salary, CPF etc, the petitioner submitted a representation and thereafter Respondent No. 3 directed Respondent No. 4 not to release the retiral benefits of the petitioner without consent of the Headquarter, The petitioner also came to know that his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 28.02.2014 by order of the 4th respondent dated 04.03.2014. The 3rd respondent seems to have questioned 4th respondent about his authority to accept the resignation letter of the petitioner without his approval and permitting to relieve. 3. The petitioner while waiting for his settlement of retiral benefits, received a charge memo dated 17.07.2014 stating that Respondent No. 3 proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 3. The petitioner while waiting for his settlement of retiral benefits, received a charge memo dated 17.07.2014 stating that Respondent No. 3 proposed to hold an enquiry against the petitioner under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The said charge memo as well as appointment of enquiry officer by order dated 05.09.2014 and refusal to pay retirement benefits were challenged on the ground that the petitioner having been relieved by the 4th respondent with a request to handover charge to senior most P.G. Teacher, the charge, as framed, is not maintainable. The charge was that the petitioner deserted the post of Incharge Principal of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Doda on 28.02.2014 and took up employment as Principal in a private School under Delhi Public School Society at Kathua without prior authorization of the competent authority of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and he left the school by stating some personal reasons even during ongoing regular CBSE examination for the year 2014, which reveals lack of integrity towards his employment in government service. 4. The validity of the charge memo and the consequential actions were challenged on the ground that the 4th respondent had already granted permission for relieving him with direction to handover the charge to the senior most teacher (maths). The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner having resigned is not entitled to get the retirement benefits by relying on various judgments of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal also held that no document was shown by the petitioner to the effect that his resignation was ever accepted by the competent authority, thus dismissed the writ petition against which this writ petition is filed principally on the ground that in the letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 03.04.2014 addressed to the Commissioner, NVS, Noida stating that his resignation letter dated 25.02.2014 was received by the Deputy Commissioner's office on 03.03.2014 and the Deputy Commissioner felt that the Vidyalaya could not be kept without a head, therefore, he was asked to handover the charge to the senior most teacher on 28.02.2014 as he insisted to leave. Ultimately the Deputy Commissioner requested the Commissioner to ratify/approve the relieving of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Ultimately the Deputy Commissioner requested the Commissioner to ratify/approve the relieving of the petitioner. 5. Mr. P.N. Raina, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner heavily relying on the said communication of the Deputy Commissioner dated 03.04.2014 argued that the petitioner having submitted the application for relieving him on 25.02.2014 as directed by Respondent No. 4, seeking to accept resignation from 28.02.2014 and the petitioner having been relieved by the Deputy Commissioner, which is reflected in the letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 03.04.2014, who in turn sought approval/ratification of relieving and recommended for accepting the resignation but without passing any order on the said request made by the Deputy Commissioner to the Commissioner, issuing charge memo and appointing enquiry officer is without any basis and jurisdiction. He has also stated that even if a person has submitted his resignation, who is otherwise eligible to go on voluntary retirement, said resignation shall be treated as a request for voluntary retirement, so that the person concerned will get retiral benefits. In support of the said contention, he referred the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in MANU/SC/1211/2014 : 2014 Legal Eagle (SC) 1068 : [2004 (16) SCC 260 : JKJ Soft JKJ/32460 Shashikala Devi v. Central Bank of India & Ors.] 6. Mr. P.C. Sharma, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondents was asked as to whether the petitioner left the school on 28.02.2014 on his own or he was permitted to go by the Deputy Commissioner. Learned counsel for the respondents replied that the Deputy Commissioner was not the competent authority to relieve the petitioner or asking to handover charge to another person and the competent authority having not passed any order accepting resignation or permitting him to leave, the charge memo issued is just and proper. 7. We have considered rival submissions perused the documents filed and the decision cited. 8. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as teacher in the education department of Jammu & Kashmir Government on 01.03.1977. It is also not in dispute that he applied for the post of trained graduate teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and was selected. He was granted no objection by the Education Department of the J&K Government for deputation to accept the post of teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya School and he joined. It is also not in dispute that he applied for the post of trained graduate teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and was selected. He was granted no objection by the Education Department of the J&K Government for deputation to accept the post of teacher in Navodaya Vidyalaya School and he joined. It is also a fact that the petitioner was absorbed on permanent basis as trained graduate teacher w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in Navodaya Vidyalaya and he was promoted as Postgraduate teacher on the basis of his merit and ability in May, 1994. The petitioner was again given promotion as Vice Principal by Respondent No. 3 on appreciation of his merit and ability w.e.f. 02.07.2013. It is also a fact that the petitioner was to retire on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.07.2014. Admittedly Navodaya Vidyalaya teachers/principals are not pensionable pension. Therefore, the petitioner thought that his teaching experience gained from 1977 to 2013 could be utilized by some other school after his retirement and in that process he will be in a position to earn his livelihood also. Hence he applied for the post of Principal in Delhi Public School, Kathua and he was also selected. The management of said school insisted the petitioner to join in their school by end of March, 2014, therefore, the petitioner could not continue in Navodaya Vidyalaya School till his date of retirement i.e. 31.07.2014. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner served one month's notice stating his intention to resign through proper channel on 27.01.2014 i.e. through the 4th respondent. The 4th respondent advised the petitioner to tender the resignation letter so that he will be in a position to relieve the petitioner and based on the request/advice of the 4th respondent the resignation letter was submitted on 25.02.2014 and the 4th respondent relieved the petitioner w.e.f. 28.02.2014 by permitting him to hand over charge to senior most P. G. teacher in the school. 9. It is a fact that number of persons on similar circumstances submitted resignations and they were relieved based on their resignations and even in some cases resignation letters received were accepted within 24 hours. 9. It is a fact that number of persons on similar circumstances submitted resignations and they were relieved based on their resignations and even in some cases resignation letters received were accepted within 24 hours. Thus, the 4th respondent found that request of the petitioner was more logical which demanded human consideration, particularly bearing in mind that, had there been any provision for pension in the organization he could not have preferred to join Delhi Public School because of financial security after retirement. The Deputy Commissioner, who is the immediate superior officer, in his letter dated 03.04.2014 stated that the petitioner was relieved on 28.02.2014 and requested the Commissioner Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, B-15 Institutional Area, Sector 62 Noida (U.P.) to approve/ratify his said action of relieving. It is apt to refer the relevant portion of the said letter which reads thus:- "..........I had advised him to tender resignation notice in such a manner that he could be relieved after the CBSE examinations of Class 12th could be over. But telephonic discussions with Sh. Kotwal sounded more logical which demanded human consideration. He stated that he was selected as Principal in DPS and that the DPS wanted him to join in the month of March itself because their process of admission was on, otherwise they would call the second man in merit and as such, he would lose the opportunity to earn his bread and butter upto the age of 65 years. He further stated that he was about to retire in the month of July and if did not join in March, he would lose the opportunity of getting employment after his superannuation upto the age of 65 years. He further stated that had there been any provision for pension in the organization, he could have deferred his decision to join DPS because of financial security after retirement. This Office never accepted his resignation. His resignation letter dated 14/25.02.2014 was received in this office on 03.03.2014. The Vidyalaya could not be kept without a Head, hence I asked to handover the charge to Senior Most Teacher as he insisted to leave. In such a situation, though he was never promised to accept his resignation and relieving him, yet even if he was relieved on 28th February, I feel Commissioner, NVS would appreciate the concern of the Regional Officer. Therefore, relieving of Sh. In such a situation, though he was never promised to accept his resignation and relieving him, yet even if he was relieved on 28th February, I feel Commissioner, NVS would appreciate the concern of the Regional Officer. Therefore, relieving of Sh. D.K. Kotwal, may kindly be approved and his resignation may kindly be accepted. Sd/- (Suresh Kumar) Deputy Commissioner" 10. On perusing the said letter it is evident that the petitioner did not violated any of the rules and he has not left the school on his own to take up other assignment. The said reasons are convincing to this Court to hold that the petitioner has not committed any misconduct as alleged in the charge memo. Even assuming that the 4th respondent was not having jurisdiction to relieve the petitioner, the 4th respondent having owned his mistake by stating the circumstances under which he took such a decision and having requested the Commissioner to approve/ratify his action, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the alleged violation of rules. Thus, the charge memo issued to the petitioner is unsustainable and the same is quashed. Once the charge memo is quashed the appointment of enquiry officer is also not unnecessary. 11. Insofar as payment of retiral benefits to the petitioner is concerned, it is to be noted that on 13.03.2014 the Assistant Commissioner has not rejected the request seeking sanction of retiral benefits and only a direction was issued not to release the same without the consent of the Assistant Commissioner (E-III). The said letter reads thus:- "I am directed to refer to your office order No. 10-l/NVS/RO/CHD/Estt./2014, dated 04.03.2014 vide which resignation of Shri. D.K. Kotwal, Vice Principal, JNV-Doda has been accepted w.e.f. 28.02.2014. In this regard, it is requested to provide the authority under which the resignation of Shri D.K. Kotwal has been accepted without the approval of this office. The retirement benefits of Shri Kotwal should not be released without the consent of this office. Sd/- (D.C. Verma) Asstt. Commissioner (E. HI)" Now the charge memo having been quashed the claim of the petitioner seeking retiral benefits has to be considered and decision is required to be taken by the competent authority. The retirement benefits of Shri Kotwal should not be released without the consent of this office. Sd/- (D.C. Verma) Asstt. Commissioner (E. HI)" Now the charge memo having been quashed the claim of the petitioner seeking retiral benefits has to be considered and decision is required to be taken by the competent authority. As we reached the above conclusion, we are constrained to quash the charge memo dated 17.07.2014, order appointing enquiry officer dated 05.098.2014 and withholding of retiral benefits by order dated 13.03.2014, which were affirmed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA No. 061/00065/2014 and direct the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner seeking retiral benefits in accordance with law and pass orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs. Disposed off.