JUDGMENT : Ajay Rastogi, J. The petitioner is holder of B.E. (Civil) and initially joined service as Junior Engineer on 12-7-1995 and promoted as Assistant Engineer & also as Executive Engineer and indisputably has completed qualifying service of 15 years on 12-7-2010 and application was submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement u/R 50(i) of the Rajasthan Pension Rules, 1996 ("Rules,1996") addressed to the appointing authority the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Jaipur dated 11-2-2016 to be effective from 1-8-2016 (Annx.1) at the same time also sent his reminder dated 22-2-2016 to the Superintending Engineer with endorsement to the Principal Secretary of the Department that his application seeking voluntary retirement may be sympathetically considered and after the application became effective w.e.f. 1-8-2016 application was filed by him that he stood voluntary retired from service by fiction of law and treating to be a retired person all his retiral dues may be released to which he is entitled for under the law. 2. At this stage he came across with the letter of Superintending Engineer dated 27-7-2016 Annx.6 informing that his application seeking voluntary retirement has not been accepted for the reason that a disciplinary enquiry u/R 16 of the CCA Rules,1958 dated 29-1-2016 is pending against him and indisputably no communication was sent to the petitioner from the office of appointing authority to whom application was originally addressed by him and the action of the respondents in holding that his application for voluntary retirement has not been accepted by the authority, according to the petitioner the letter dated 27-7-2016 Annx.6 is not in consonance with R.50(ii) of the Rules,1996 and that compelled him to approach this Court by filing of the instant petition. 3. After notices of the present petition came to be served reply has been filed by the respondents and the document dated 27-7-2016 (Annx.6) is their sole defence that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement to be effective from 1-8-2016 being declined prior to the date seeking voluntary retirement by the authority on 27-7-2016 along with the reason that he is facing departmental enquiry initiated against him u/R 16 of the Rules, 1958 dated 29-1-2016, as such the petitioner was not justified in still harping upon his application voluntary retirement became effective from 1-8-2016. 4. 4. During the course of arguments a letter sent from the office of the appointing authority i.e. Principal Secretary of the Department dated 6-9-2016 addressed to the Chief Engineer has been placed for perusal where the appointing authority has communicated that the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement has been declined by the State Government. 5. Counsel for respondent further submits that the communication was sent to the petitioner prior to his application became effective from 1-8-2016 as indicated from the letter communicated to him Annx.6 dated 27-7-2016 and after the appointing authority declined to accept his application seeking voluntary retirement vide communication dated 6-9-2016 his application for seeking voluntary retirement by fiction of law as contemplated u/R.50(i) of the Rules, 1996 according to the respondent is not sustainable in law. 6. Before this Court may examine the question raised for consideration, considers it appropriate to quote R.50 of the Rules, 1996 which is relevant for the present purpose reads as under :- "R.50 :- Retirement on completion of 15 years' qualifying service. (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed fifteen years qualifying service, he 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 automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period." 7. U/r. 50(1) a government servant at any time after has completed fifteen years of qualifying service, is at liberty to give notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority seeking retirement from service & sub-rule (2) of R.50 of the Rules,1996 envisages that the notice of voluntary retirement tendered under sub-rule (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority, who alone is competent to take a decision either to grant or refuse the permission seeking voluntary retirement before expiry of the stipulated period specified in the notice, in absence whereof the retirement shall automatically become effective from the date of expiry of the said period by operation of law in the instant case w.e.f. 1-8-2016 as prayed. It is not disputed that the application dated 22-2-2016 (Annx.1) was received in the office of the appointing authority and the appointing authority failed to pass the order before his retirement, to be made effective from 1-8-2016 and the power vested with the authority was neither delegated nor permissible by law. 8. The submission made by respondents' counsel that the communication was sent to the petitioner on 27-7-2016 declining to accept his application seeking voluntary retirement is without substance for the reason that it is the appointing authority who has to take a decision regarding refusal on the application seeking voluntary retirement or indisputably the letter dated 27-7-2016 was sent by the Superintending Engineer who was not the appointing authority of the petitioner and for the first time the appointing authority to whom the application was addressed by the petitioner, expressed its decision addressed to the Chief Engineer on 6-9-2016 which is much after the expiry of the period specified by the petitioner in his application seeking voluntary retirement and by operation of law became effective w.e.f. 1-8-2016. 9. The further submission made by respondents' counsel that enquiry initiated u/R 16 of the Rules dated 29-1-2016 is still pending, suffice it to say that it may not come as an impediment in seeking voluntary retirement and open for the competent authority to take its decision based on the material on record but within the stipulated period and as regards the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him u/R 16 of the Rules,1996 dated 29-1-2016 is concerned, that can still continue and be concluded in accordance with law. 10. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The petitioner stood voluntarily retired from service w.e.f. 1-8-2016 in terms of R.50(i) of the Rules, 1996 and he is entitled to get his retiral dues as permissible at the same time this Court further makes it clear that the respondents are at liberty to conclude the disciplinary enquiry initiated against him u/R 16 of the Rules, 1958 dated 29-1-2016 in accordance with law. No cost.