JUDGMENT : Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. 1. Heard Sri S.S. Rajawat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4. 2. In view of the proposed order, notice to opposite party no.5 is hereby dispensed with. 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 10.7.2019 passed by the Settlement Officer of Consolidation, District -Unnao whereby the application of the petitioner dated 18.6.2019 withdrawing the application for voluntary retirement dated 23.5.2019 has been rejected and application for voluntary retirement dated 23.5.2019 has been accepted. 4. The petitioner has submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 23.5.2019, which is contained in Annexure No.7 to the writ petition. Said application is an unconditional application. Thereafter, the competent authority has issued a letter dated 24.5.2019 to the petitioner, which is contained in Annexure No.9 to the writ petition, directing the petitioner to indicate the period as to when he is willing to be retired voluntarily. In the said application, it has categorically been indicated that if the petitioner does not indicate the period, he shall be deemed to be retired w.e.f. 22.8.2019 i.e. after expiry of three months' period w.e.f. 23.5.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application on 18.6.2019 prior to 22.8.2019, withdrawing his voluntary retirement application dated 23.5.2019. In said application, the petitioner has narrated so many facts and circumstances but at the end he requested that since his voluntary retirement application has not been accepted by the department, therefore, the said application may not be accepted. After receiving the aforesaid application dated 18.6.2019, the authority competent has passed the order dated 10.7.2019, which is contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 18.6.2019 whereby he had withdrawn his voluntary retirement application dated 23.5.2019. 5. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 18.6.2019, the authority competent has dealt such application of the petitioner, by means of the impugned order, as if the application for compulsory retirement is being dealt with inasmuch as so many allegations have been levelled against the petitioner regarding his work, conduct and performance of duties. The impugned order goes to the extent that considering the entire service record of the petitioner and his work and conduct, he should not be retained in Government service, however no separate proceedings to that effect have ever been drawn against the petitioner. In the aforesaid backdrop, the impugned rejection order dated 10.7.2019 which has been passed by the competent authority appears to have exercised his jurisdiction in a whimsical and arbitrary manner, therefore, the order dated 10.7.2019 may be quashed. 6. Per contra, Sri Ran Vijay Singh has referred the relevant provision, which deals compulsory retirement i.e. Rule 56 of the Financial Hand Book, Volume II, Part II to IV. Sri Singh has referred Clauses (c) and (d) of the aforesaid Regulation 56, which are as under:- "(c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a) or clause (b) the appointing authority may, at any time, by notice to any Government servant (whether permanent or temporary) without assigning any reason, require him to retire after he attains the age of 50 years, or such Government servant may, by notice to the appointing authority, voluntarily retire at any time after attaining the age of [forty five years] or after he had completed qualifying service of 20 years. (d) The period of such notice shall be three months: Provided that -- (i) any such Government servant may by order of the appointing authority, without such notice or by a shorter notice, be retired forthwith at any time after attaining the age of 50 years, and on such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances, if any, for the period of the notice or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of three months, at the rates at which he was drawing them immediately before his retirement; (ii) it shall be open to the appointing authority to allow a Government servant to retire without any notice or by a shorter notice without requiring the Government servant to pay any penalty in lieu of notice: Provided further that such notice given by the Government servant against whom a disciplinary proceeding in pending or contemplated, shall be effective only if it is accepted by the appointing authority, provided 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; Provided also that the notice once given by a Government servant under clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority." 7. Sri Singh has submitted that the second proviso of Regulation 56 (d) categorically provides that notice once given by the Government servant under Clause (c) seeking voluntary retirement shall not be withdrawn by him except with the permission of the appointing authority and since in the case in hand, the appointing authority has not found any plausible reason to accept the withdrawal application of the petitioner, therefore, rejected the same vide order dated 10.7.2019. As per Sri Singh, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 10.7.2019. 8. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has also submitted that Annexure No.3 to the writ petition is a letter preferred by the petitioner directly to the Chief Minister, which is misconduct on the part of the petitioner. As per Sri Singh, there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 10.7.2019. 8. Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel has also submitted that Annexure No.3 to the writ petition is a letter preferred by the petitioner directly to the Chief Minister, which is misconduct on the part of the petitioner. Sri Singh has further submitted with vehemence that the petitioner has not withdrawn his application for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 18.6.2019 unconditionally but has indicated so many conditions casting aspersions on the superior authorities, therefore, the authority concerned has passed the order dated 10.7.2019 considering those circumstances and facts. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant material available on record, I am of the considered opinion that the authority competent has not passed the order dated 10.7.2019 strictly in accordance with law and he has dealt the issue of resignation/ voluntary retirement as if it is an issue of compulsory retirement. 10. The case in hand is a case of voluntary retirement. Sometimes voluntary retirement and resignation are taken in a similar way. Both the resignation and the voluntary retirement expressed the voluntary desire of an employee to cease his/ her occupation and all duties that go along with it. They may result from number of reasons, including personal grievances or a disability that prevents the satisfactory completion of work. Neither, however, inherently conveys any sense of wrong doing. Both exist strategies require one to provide advance written notice to the employer, with a final day of service that is clearly delineated and unconditional. Therefore, one thing is for sure that the application for voluntary retirement and resignation should be unconditional and before the said application is accepted, it can be withdrawn. However, in the case of voluntary retirement, the said withdrawal would be permissible subject to the prescription of law as applicable but it is not the case regarding resignation. Further, the touchstone and thumb rules in both the cases may largely be similar while considering a particular issue. 11. In the case of resignation, the law is settled that resignation must be unconditional and having intention to operate as such in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 1 SCC 701 . 11. In the case of resignation, the law is settled that resignation must be unconditional and having intention to operate as such in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P. and others, (2003) 1 SCC 701 . In the present case, the withdrawal application of the petitioner is unconditional, therefore, it qualifies this test. This analogy may be accepted in case of voluntary retirement. 12. Secondly, resignation can be withdrawn before the same has been accepted by the competent authority. In the instant case, the application of the petitioner regarding voluntary retirement had not been accepted and it was deemed to be accepted w.e.f. 22.8.2019 i.e. the period of three months from tendering such application but the petitioner has withdrawn his said application on 18.6.2019. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Balram Gupta v. Union of India and another, 1987 (Supp) SCC 228, has considered more or less identical circumstance and held in para 13 as under:- "13. We hold, therefore, that there was no valid reason for withholding the permission by the respondent. We hold further that there has been compliance with the guidelines because the appellant has indicated that there was a change in the circumstances, namely, the persistent and personal requests from the staff members and relations which changed his attitude towards continuing in Government service and induced the appellant to withdraw the notice. In the modern and uncertain age it is very difficult to arrange one's future with any amount of certainty, a certain amount of flexibility is required, and if such flexibility does not jeopardize Government or administration, administration should be graceful enough to respond and acknowledge the flexibility of human mind and attitude and allow the appellant to withdraw his letter of retirement in the facts and circumstances of this case. Much complications which had arisen could have been thus avoided by such graceful attitude. The court cannot but condemn circuitous ways "to ease out" uncomfortable employees. As a model employer the government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees." 13. The competent authority could have passed any order indicating other reasons except those which have been considered in the impugned order relating to appreciation of his service records, work and conduct etc. of the petitioner. As a model employer the government must conduct itself with high probity and candour with its employees." 13. The competent authority could have passed any order indicating other reasons except those which have been considered in the impugned order relating to appreciation of his service records, work and conduct etc. of the petitioner. Had the petitioner been retired compulsorily under Regulation 56, the findings of competent authority vide order dated 10.7.2019 would have been justified but this is a case of voluntary retirement, which was withdrawn by the employee before it has been accepted, therefore, the findings of impugned order dated 10.7.2019 are absolutely unwarranted and uncalled for. The High Court of Delhi has considered more or less identical issue in re; Poonam Garg Vs. IFCI Venture Capital Funds Ltd. through its Managing Director & others, W.P. (C) 9304/2019 & C.M. No.38360/2019 (stay) following various dictums of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject, which has been decided on 27.9.2019 and paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 & 21 are relevant for the present issue, which are being quoted herein below:- "16. The question as to when an employee can be allowed to withdraw his request for resignation or voluntary retirement and the employer’s right to reject such request for withdrawal has been considered by the Supreme Court from time to time and the common thread running through all these decisions is that in normal circumstances, an employee can withdraw its resignation before it comes into effect or operation. In this regard, reference may be made to paragraph 41 of Union of India Vs. Gopal Chandra Misra (1978) 2 SCC 301 . "41. The general principle that emerges from the foregoing conspectus, is that in the absence of anything to the contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office/post, an intimation in writing sent to the competent authority by the incumbent, of his intention or proposal to resign his office/post from a future specified date can be withdrawn by him at any time before it becomes effective, i.e. before it effects termination of the tenure of the office/post or the employment." 17. The Apex Court in Air India Express Limited and Ors. Vs. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu 2019 (11) SCALE 310 has in paragraph 17 of its decision, after considering its earlier decisions in Gopal Chandra Misra (supra), Balram Gupta (supra), Punjab National Bank Vs. The Apex Court in Air India Express Limited and Ors. Vs. Gurdarshan Kaur Sandhu 2019 (11) SCALE 310 has in paragraph 17 of its decision, after considering its earlier decisions in Gopal Chandra Misra (supra), Balram Gupta (supra), Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K. Mittal 1989 Supp (2) SCC 175 and J.N. Srivastava (supra), summarised the circumstances in which withdrawal of a request for voluntary retirement can be permitted by observing as under: "17. It is thus well settled that normally, until the resignation becomes effective, it is open to an employee to withdraw his resignation. When would the resignation become effective may depend upon the governing service regulations and/or the terms and conditions of the office/post. As stated in paragraphs 41 and 50 in Gopal Chandra Misra, "in the absence of anything to the contrary in the provisions governing the terms and conditions of the office/post" or "in the absence of a legal contractual or constitutional bar, a "prospective resignation" can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective". Further, as laid down in Balram Gupta, "If, however, the administration had made arrangements acting on his resignation or letter of retirement to make other employee available for his job, that would be another matter." 18. The petitioner's application for voluntary retirement, having been made in accordance with paragraph 33 of the Regulations, as also the fact that the contentions raised by both sides revolve around the language of paragraphs 33(2)(i), (ii) and (v), it would be apposite to reproduce the same for the facility of reference. The relevant extracts of paragraphs 33 (2)(i), (ii), (iii) and (v) of the Regulations read as under:- "33. Superannuation and Retirement ........... (2) (i) An employee who has attained the age of 50 years shall have an option to retire anytime thereafter by giving to the Company three months' notice in writing. (ii) Without prejudice to the sub regulation 2(i), the employee of the Company may voluntary retire at any time after the completion of 20 years of qualifying service (even though he has not attained the age of 50 years), after giving to the competent authority three months notice in writing. (ii) Without prejudice to the sub regulation 2(i), the employee of the Company may voluntary retire at any time after the completion of 20 years of qualifying service (even though he has not attained the age of 50 years), after giving to the competent authority three months notice in writing. Provided that this sub regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or study leave abroad, unless after having been transferred or having returned to India, he has resumed the charge of the post in India and served for a period of not less than one year. Provided further that this sub regulation, shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement. (iii) The notice or voluntary retirement given under sub-Regulation (ii) shall not be valid unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority, Provided that where the Competent Authority does not communicate its decision not to accept such notice before the expiry or period specified in the notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of such period. ............................. (v) An employee, who has elected to voluntarily retire, pursuant to sub-Regulation 2 (ii) and has given notice for the purpose, shall not be entitled to withdraw the notice, except with the permission of the Competent Authority, provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement." 19. The petitioner has, by placing reliance on paragraph 33(2)(v), contended that the Regulations clearly envisage that an employee seeking voluntary retirement would be entitled to withdraw the said request subject to such withdrawal being made prior to the intended date of retirement. On the other hand, the respondents have vehemently contended that the petitioner’s application for voluntary retirement was covered under paragraph 33(2)(i) of the Regulations which entitles an employee to seek withdrawal of its request for voluntary retirement; it is only cases governed by paragraph 33(2)(ii) when an application seeking withdrawal of an earlier request can be entertained by the management, but even this withdrawal is subject to the permission of the Competent Authority. The respondents have, therefore, contended that no employee has an absolute right to seek withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. The respondents have, therefore, contended that no employee has an absolute right to seek withdrawal of his application for voluntary retirement. Upon a careful perusal of the Regulations, I am unable to accept the respondents" contentions that paragraph 33(2)(v) is not applicable to cases where voluntary retirement has been sought under paragraph 33(2) (i). Once paragraph 33(2)(ii) states in no uncertain terms that it operates without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 33(2)(i), it is evident that any request for withdrawal envisaged under paragraph 33(2)(v) would include requests for voluntary retirement made under both paragraphs 33(2)(i) and (ii) and, therefore, the respondents" plea that the petitioner was not entitled to seek withdrawal under Paragraph 33(2)(v) is wholly unmerited. 20. In any event, even if the respondents" plea that paragraph 33(2)(v) of the Regulations was not applicable to paragraph 33(2)(i) were to be accepted, it would only imply that there is no provision in the Regulations dealing with the withdrawal of an application made under paragraph 33(2)(i) while an application made under paragraph 33(2)(ii) can be withdrawn subject to conditions prescribed in paragraph 33(2)(v). Thus, as per the case sought to be pleaded by the respondent, once there is no specific provision for withdrawal of an application made under paragraph 33(2)(i), a necessary corollary thereof is that there is neither any specific bar nor any conditions attached to seeking withdrawal of a request for voluntary retirement made under paragraph 33(2)(i). In these circumstances, any requests for withdrawal of an application made under paragraph 33(2)(i) would necessarily be covered by general principles which provide that even in the absence of any specific provision in the regulations, an employee can seek withdrawal of his request for resignation or voluntary retirement. Reference in this regard may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court as contained in paragraph 8 in P.K. Mittal (supra), which read as under:- "8. The result of the above interpretation is that the employee continued to be in service till 21-4-1986 or 30-6-1986, on which date his services would have come normally to an end in terms of his letter dated 21-1-1986. But, by that time, he had exercised his right to withdraw the resignation. Since the withdrawal letter was written before the resignation became effective, the resignation stands withdrawn, with the result that the respondent continues to be in the service of the bank. But, by that time, he had exercised his right to withdraw the resignation. Since the withdrawal letter was written before the resignation became effective, the resignation stands withdrawn, with the result that the respondent continues to be in the service of the bank. It is true that there is no specific provision in the regulations permitting the employee to withdraw the resignation. It is, however, not necessary that there should be any such specific rule. Until the resignation becomes effective on the terms of the letter read with Regulation 20, it is open to the employee, on general principles, to withdraw his letter of resignation. That is why, in some cases of public services, this right of withdrawal is also made subject to the permission of the employer. There is no such clause here. It is not necessary to labour this point further as it is well settled by the earlier decisions of this Court in Raj Kumar v. Union of India [ (1968) 3 SCR 857 : AIR 1969 SC 180 : 1969 Lab IC 310], Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra [(1978) 3 SCC 301 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 303 : (1978) 3 SCR 12 ] and Balram Gupta v. Union of India [1987 Supp SCC 228 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 126]" 21. Thus, when looked at from any angle it is evident that the petitioner was well within her right to seek withdrawal of her request for voluntary retirement before its effective date. If paragraph 33(2)(v) is taken as not being applicable to the petitioner’s case, then her request had to be considered as per the general principles laid down by the Supreme Court, which as noted hereinabove prescribe that a request for resignation can be withdrawn anytime before it becomes effective. The petitioner’s voluntary retirement was to be effective from 07.09.2019, not only as per her application but even as per the alleged acceptance of the respondent. Her withdrawal application, therefore, having been made much earlier, was liable to be accepted. On the other hand, if paragraph 33(2)(v) is taken as being applicable to the petitioner’s case, the only rider therein is that the leave of the Competent Authority was required before seeking such withdrawal, but as rightly contended by the petitioner the Competent Authority cannot be permitted to exercise its discretion in this regard in a wholly whimsical and arbitrary manner. The petitioner has served the Company for 24 years without any complaint whatsoever against her and had been promoted as a General Manager, yet its impugned order assigns no reason whatsoever for rejecting her request. There is also no reason as to why the Company should not permit the petitioner to seek withdrawal of her request, especially since she sought the same within barely 6 days of her making the application for voluntary retirement. It is not even the case of the Company that they had appointed any new person to assume the duties of the petitioner or had in any manner invested in training any new employee for the post which she was holding. Merely because the respondent No.1 had issued an order on 11.06.2019 redistributing the duties of its employees, would not be a ground to deprive the petitioner of the right available to her under law. Once the Company’s Regulations do not require an employee to provide reasons at the time of seeking voluntary retirement or seeking withdrawal thereof, the petitioner’s failure to provide any reasons either at the time of submitting her application seeking voluntary retirement or while seeking withdrawal thereof cannot be a ground to reject her request for withdrawal. In the facts of the present case, when the withdrawal was sought within a short span of time when neither any new personnel had been appointed nor any substantial reorganisation of personnel had been carried out by the Company, the rejection of the petitioner’s request for withdrawal was wholly unjustified. Even the contention of the respondents that the petitioner is habituated to requesting voluntary retirement as a manner of protesting her transfer remains unsubstantiated as nothing has been placed on record in support thereof." 14. Before the Delhi High Court the relevant rule applicable in the case was cited in Regulation 33 of the Regulations and Sub-clause (v) of Regulation 33 is pari materia of second proviso of Sub-clause (d) of Regulation 56 and the Delhi High Court has dealt the issue and has found that such condition may not be treated as rider if the application for voluntary retirement is withdrawn before its acceptance. In the said case before the Delhi High Court, while rejecting the application of that petitioner whereby resignation was withdrawn no condition was imposed, however, in the present case those conditions have been imposed, which could have not been imposed while disposing of the issue of voluntary retirement. Therefore, it appears that discretion of the competent authority rejecting the application of the petitioner dated 18.6.2019 is wholly whimsical and arbitrary. 15. Before parting with, it is needless to say that if the petitioner has shown serious indiscipline in his entire service career as his application dated 18.6.2019 and that application which has directly been addressed to the Chief Minister are an example of gross indiscipline as per learned counsel for the opposite parties, any appropriate orders can be passed by the authority concerned but strictly in accordance with law, however, while disposing of the application for withdrawal of the application of voluntary retirement, his entire service record and his behaviour, work and conduct may not be appreciated in a manner as if it is a case of compulsory retirement. The separate mode has been prescribed if the order of compulsory retirement is passed. The authority cannot use the application of voluntary retirement for retiring the employee compulsorily. 16. In view of the above, the order dated 10.7.2019 passed by opposite party no.4 is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 10.7.2019 passed by opposite party no.4 is hereby quashed. 17. The liberty is given to the opposite parties to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 18. A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties to permit the petitioner forthwith to continue on the post in question on which he was discharging his duties before submitting his application for voluntary retirement and pay him his salary and other consequential services benefits with promptness, say within a period of four weeks, as per law. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 20. No order as to costs.