ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - Both the writ petitions are out of common facts and, therefore, are being decided by passing a common order. 2. The brief facts as noticed by this court in the writ petitions are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of conductor on 4-10-1977. The petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 11.3.1999. The application was forwarded by the respondents on 16.4.1999. The respondents did not grant the voluntary retirement to the petitioner as they did not find the proof of medical ailment issued by any appropriate medical authority. 3. The respondents filed a detailed reply in the writ petitions pertaining to seeking of the voluntary retirement and stated that the petitioners were remaining wilfully absent from duty and had indulged in corrupt practices. The respondents took a categorical stand in the writ petition No. 1740/2005 whereby they stated that an enquiry was pending against the petitioner and in those circumstances there was no question of answering respondents accepting the application submitted by the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement until the petitioners service record was clean or the contemplated departmental enquiries came to an end. 4. Therefore, as per the reply the voluntary retirement of the petitioners was not given on account of the enquiry under contemplation. As per the respondents, the petitioners were seeking voluntary retirement to escape disciplinary proceedings pending against him. Thereafter, the respondents passed an order dated 7.11.2008 whereby an enquiry officer was appointed for the charge-sheets dated 10.8.2001, 25.7.1988, 7.4.1999, 10.3.1995, 15.10.1997, 6.8.1997, 11.10.1991, 23.6.2006 and 10.8.2001. After appointing the enquiry officer the enquiry proceedings were completed and the impugned order of punishment was passed on 5.6.2009 whereby while invoking the Section 36, sub-section (7) of the Standing orders of 1965 of the respondents corporation, the service of the petitioner was terminated. 5. The petitioner challenged the termination order by filing another writ petition No. 1511/2010. In this also a detailed reply was filed and it was stated that a departmental enquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with law. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this court is of the opinion that the respondents authorities have disabled himself from reaching the fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this court is of the opinion that the respondents authorities have disabled himself from reaching the fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case. The authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant and extraneous considerations. It is also found that the conclusion on the vary face of it is wholly arbitrary and capricious and no reasonable person could have ever arrived at the conclusion in the present facts and circumstances. These are sufficient to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India as laid in the precedent law of Central Industrial Security Force and Ors. v. Abrar Ali reported in 2016 (12) SCALE 853 : ( AIR 2017 SC 200 ). 7. The fact is that the application for voluntary retirement which was otherwise a legal right of the petitioner made on 11.3.1999 on grounds of ill-health was kept pending on account of pending charge-sheets and meanwhile the act of not appointing the enquiry officer for next 10 years shows how the respondents corporation is functioning. The respondent deprived the petitioner from the right of voluntary retirement in pursuance of application dated 11.3.1999 is a travesty of justice. If the respondents were serious to complete the enquiry then they should not have appointed the enquiry officer 18 years after the initial charge was levelled. In the charge-sheet the 9 charges were ranging from year, 1991 to year, 2001 whereas the enquiry authority has been first time appointed on 7.11.2008 which reflects much upon the conduct of the respondents themselves. The harassment and vindictive with which the respondents have proceeded is writ large in the document dated 7.11.2008 produced as Annx. 8 of the writ petition. The charge No. 7 was on account of 2 passengers travelling without tickets for which the charge-sheet was given on 11.10.1991 and from 11.10.1991 the respondents have failed even to appoint enquiry officer until 7.11.2008. The other charges are also their which independently may have resulted into the conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority but in the cumulative facts and circumstances it is nothing but a mockery of the system of providing justice to the employees through the procedure of disciplinary proceedings. The other charges are also their which independently may have resulted into the conclusion drawn by the Disciplinary Authority but in the cumulative facts and circumstances it is nothing but a mockery of the system of providing justice to the employees through the procedure of disciplinary proceedings. The authorities clearly disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion and are influenced by irrelevant considerations and the finding therefore, it is totally arbitrary and capricious and thus liable to stuck down by this court. Accumulating the charge-sheets for decades and then using them as a weapon at one point of time is a conduct worth deprecating. The respondents have apparently acted with vengeance. The reason for stalling the application of retirement dated 11.3.1999 due to pending inquiry collapsed for the very reason that the enquiry officer is appointed on 7.11.2008. 8. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned punishment order dated 5.6.2009 along with the consequential appeal order dated 17.8.2009 is quashed and set aside. The prayer of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement dated 11.3.1999 is accepted and the respondents are directed to give voluntary retirement to the petitioner with effect from the date of submission of the application along with all consequential benefits of voluntary retirement. The consequential relief shall be given to the petitioner within a period of 3 months from furnishing the certified copy of this order to the respondents. 9. Both the writ petitions are allowed in the aforementioned terms. 10. A copy of this order be placed in connected writ petition.