JUDGMENT 1. Heard Sri A. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.03.2017 passed by the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal, Indira Bhawan, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 540 of 2008 (Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). The Claim Petition has been dismissed by the Tribunal on merit. The petitioner had approached the Tribunal in Claim Petition against the punishment or dismissal order dated 27.05.1994 along with Appellate Order dated 23.01.2008 with all consequential benefits. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner was working as a Messenger in Radio Station, Ukhimath. He had gone on fourteen days leave on 07.06.1990, he had to join the duty on 27.06.1990, but he could not join the duty till 07.02.1993. On 07.02.1993 he joined the duty in afternoon. Thereafter, an inquiry was initiated against him for the charges firstly that he remained absent for 956 days from duty unauthorizedly, secondly for threatening to commit suicide and or commit any thing if payment would not have been done. The Enquiry Officer after due enquiry submitted a report opining that charges made against the petitioner have been proved. Thereafter a show cause notice was issued against the petitioner to which he replied, but without considering his reply, the petitioner was awarded punishment of dismissal sanctioning leave without pay for the period of absence. Against the punishment order he filed an appeal on 01.06.1994. But when the appeal was not decided within a reasonable time he filed a claim petition being Claim Petition No. 2477 of 1994, which was decided on 05.07.2007. In compliance of the order dated 05.07.2007 the appeal was decided on 23.01.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Claim Petition No. 540 of 2008 on the ground that the documents on which charges were based, were not provided to the petitioner and that leave without pay has been sanctioned for the absence as a punishment which is not provided in CCA Rule and further that letter dated 12.03.1993 was not on record and finally that the period of absence has been regularized by sanctioning leave. It is contended that the appellate authority has not considered the reply of the petitioner and the prayer of voluntary retirement has not been considered by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. 4. It is contended that the appellate authority has not considered the reply of the petitioner and the prayer of voluntary retirement has not been considered by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. 4. The opposite parties contested the claim petition by filing counter affidavit/ written statement in which it has been stated that petitioner remained absent from 27.06.1990 to 07.02.1993 unauthorizedly. In respect of the said unauthorized absence preliminary enquiry was conducted and after finding the petitioner guilty, the disciplinary inquiry was held. In the disciplinary inquiry, the Enquiry Officer provided reasonable opportunity of defence to the petitioner and submitted his inquiry report to the disciplinary authority. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter issued a show cause notice along-with the enquiry report to the petitioner and after the receipt of his reply passed the impugned order. The appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected by the appellate authority on good and sufficient reasons. The claim petition, as such, was dismissed as having no force. 5. The petitioner filed the rejoinder affidavit denying the averments made in the counter affidavit reiterating the facts in the claim petition. 6. The Tribunal considered the rival arguments and has come to the conclusion that inquiry was conducted properly and the charges were proved. The counsel for the petitioner before this Court has forcefully argued that when the show cause notice was given to the petitioner, he had opted that instead of transfer he may be granted voluntary retirement. This fact is confirmed by the observations of the Tribunal itself at internal page 5 of the judgment and in paragraph No.3 of the reply of the charge sheet which was given to the petitioner and it was produced by the Court itself. This fact is confirmed by the observations of the Tribunal itself at internal page 5 of the judgment and in paragraph No.3 of the reply of the charge sheet which was given to the petitioner and it was produced by the Court itself. For convenience we reproduce the portion which is quoted by the tribunal itself:- Jheku th bu lc dh bRryk rFkk eqfDr gsrq izkFkhZ LFkkukUrj.k es rCnhyh rFkk ;g u lEHko gks rks isa'ku ¼lsokfuo`fŸk½ gsrq izkFkZuk i= fuEu fnukadks dks ns j[kk gS] 24-11-89@19-8-89@27-8-89@17-9-89@12-10-89@13-11-89@24-11-89@14-3-90@15-3-90- tc bu ij dksbZ dk;Zokgh ekfQd ugha gks ldh izkFkhZ viuk lkjk larqyu gh [kks;k&2 lk jgus yxk bl ij izkFkhZ dqN lksp le> ugh ldkA Jheku th dkSu ,slk O;fDr gksxk tks bruh vof/k rd fcuk fdlh ijs'kkuh ds vodk'k ls vuqifLFkr jgrk 60@70 gtkj :i;s dk uqdlku mBkrk blesa izkFkhZ dk ek= nks"k ugha gS foHkkx ij Hkh dqN xkSj fd;k tk;sA Jhekuth vfUre vkjksi tks iqfyl v/kh{kd peksyh }kjk n'kkZ;k x;k gS og vkRegR;k tSlk fcYdqy gh vlR; gS d`I;k esjs }kjk fn, x, izkFkZuk i= tks vkjŒ,eŒvksŒ peksyh dks Fkk] dk iqu% voyksdu fd;k tk ldrk gS rFkk ,lŒvksŒ m[kheB dks esjk fn;k x;k bl laca/k esa mŸkj Hkh iwNk tk ldrk gSA 7. The argument of the petitioner has forced us to look into the matter afresh. We find that though the Tribunal has itself recorded that there were 12 applications moved by the petitioner for voluntary retirement prior to the charge sheet dated 27.05.1993, but none of them were considered by the opposite parties. The language of the application moved by the petitioner before the Competent Authorities as annexed on page 56, Annexure No.5 to the writ petition, appears to be bonafide and genuine. The petitioner has explained his domestic problems and the fact that he a resident of Pratapgarh and was posted 1200 kms away in Uttarakhand. The petitioner was finding himself unable to adjust according to environment. He has very honestly submitted that he is feeling very helpless and unable to work, in such a situation, his prayer for voluntary retirement was not considered at all. There is no mention in the inquiry report that the case of voluntary retirement was ever considered even remotely. 8. In the appeal filed before the appellate authority against the punishment order the petitioner has again referred and prayed that he may be given voluntary retirement. There is no mention in the inquiry report that the case of voluntary retirement was ever considered even remotely. 8. In the appeal filed before the appellate authority against the punishment order the petitioner has again referred and prayed that he may be given voluntary retirement. Though the inquiry has been conducted, we find that only the charge has been proved that he was absent unauthorizedly. Nonetheless, the fact remains that prior to the departmental inquiry he has prayed and admitted his unauthorized absence. He has not denied the charges and in such a situation his prayer for voluntary retirement ought to have been considered by the opposite parties, who is State and a model employer. 9. After coming into being of the constitution nobody can force to work against his wishes and if a statute provides for some relief or method by which the prayer of an employee can be considered in accordance with law, then she should not be dealt with in a harsh manner which becomes cruel in the garb of disciplinary proceedings and punishment. We feel that there is ample evidence on record to show that the conditions of the petitioner were such wherein his case for voluntary retirement could have been considered. 10. The one of the charges made out in the charge sheet is to the effect that petitioner threatened to commit suicide or do anything violent. We feel that a sympathetic consideration of the statement will be to the effect that the employer was feeling so helpless that he was willing to give away his life for protection of his family, to treat this as a threat to the higher officer was totally reaching beyond the boundaries. 11. We feel that the attitude of the authorities has not been reasonable, rather whimsical and arbitrary. The Officer appears to have a per-determined mind to punish a person instead of considering his case for voluntary retirement. The Tribunal has miserably failed to deal with this aspect of the matter, although sufficient material was available on the face of the record. 12. In view of these facts which have been observed above, we find that the order of Tribunal is perverse and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set-aside. 13. 12. In view of these facts which have been observed above, we find that the order of Tribunal is perverse and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, set-aside. 13. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order, after considering the case of the petitioner for voluntary retirement in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid observation/direction the writ petition stands allowed.