DR. BALJIT SINGHversusSTATE OF HARYANA

                           DR. BALJIT SINGH                                   A
                                      v.
                         STATE OF HARYANA

                           DECEMBER 9, 1996

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]                             B

      Punjab Civil Service Rules : Rule 5.32 (B ).

       Se1vice Law-Voluntary retirement-Notice for-Effect of-Petitioner
gave notice for voluntary retirement -charge handed over by him without C
acceptance of notice-As prosecution for serious offences was pending against
the petitioner Government refused to permit him to retire voluntarily-Unsuc-
cessful challenge before High Courf-Appeal--Hcld since serious offences
were pending trial against the petitioner the Government have rightly refused
to permit him to retire voluntarily from service-Mere expiry of three months'
period of notice given, does not automatically put an end to Jura/ relationship D
of employer and employee between Government and the delinquent official
-Only on acceptance by the employer of resignation or request for voluntary
retirement their jural relationship ceases-Until the acceptance or rejection of
request for voluntary retirement is communicated to the employee, he is
required to remain in o/fice-flis handing over the charge without any order E
of the competent authority and acceptance of his request for voluntary retire-
ment have no result.

      Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, [1995] Supp. 1 SCC 76,
distinguished.
                                                                               F
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 23322 of 1996.

     From the Judgement and Order dated 8.5.95 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 12167 of 1994.
                                                                              G
      Jasbir Malik and M.S. Dahiya for the Petitioner.

      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

     This Special Leave Petition arises from the judgement of the Division
Bench of the Punjab and_ Haryana High Court, made in Civil Writ Petition      H
                                   695
    696                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A No. 12167/94, on May 8, 1995.

         The Petitioner while working as H.C.M.S-II had tendered his volun-
  tary retirement expressing his intention that he may be prematurely retired
  under Rule 5.32 (B) of Punjab Civil Services Rules (for short, 'The Rules')
B under which a government servant is given liberty to tender voluntary
  retirement by giving notice of not less than three months. Accordingly, on
  September 20, 1993, he had given the notice. On his own showing, he
  handed over the charge on February 11, 1994 even without acceptance of
  voluntary retirement. Thereafter, the authority by proceedings dated
  February 25, 1994 declined to accept his retirement which he challenged
C in the High Court. The High Court refused to interfere with the order
  passed by the Government.

         It is an admitted position that prosecution against the petitioner for
  offences punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471, 209, 406 I.P.C. etc. is
D pending trial in the Court of the Addi. District Judge, Gurgaon. Under
  those circumstances, the Government declined to permit the petitioner to
  retire voluntarily, from service. It is contended by Shri Jasbir Malik,
  learned counsel for the petitioner, that under the aforesaid Rule he is
  entitled to retire; due to his family circumstances he tendered his resigna-
  tion; on expiry of three months' notice the petitioner is entitled to relin-
E quish his office; the Government has no option but to accept his voluntary
  retirement. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the judgement of this
  Court in Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, (1995] Supp. 1 SCC 76.
  Therein, while the respondent was under suspension pending enquiry, he
  tendered his voluntary retirement on July 22, 1985 under Rule 1802(b) of
F the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The period of three months had
  expired on October 21, 1985. The order ofremoval was passed against him
  on November 4, 1985. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal held that
  he was entitled to retire from service and the order of removal should,
  therefore, be treated as non est. In those circumstances, this Court appears
  to have upheld the contention of the respondent and the view taken by the
G Tribunal. But in this case it is seen that when serious offences are pending
  trial, it is open to the appropriate Government to decide whether or not
  the delinquent should be permitted to retire voluntarily or such disciplinary
  action as is available should be taken under the law. Therefore, mere expiry
  of three months' period of notice given, does not automatically put an end
H to jural relationship of employer and employee between Government and
                        BALlITSINGH v. STATE                           697

the delinquent official. Only on acceptance by the employer of resignation A
or request for voluntary retirement their jural relationship ceases. It would,
therefore, be of necessity that the Government takes appropriate decision
whether the delinquent would be permitted to retire voluntarily fr0m
service pending the action against him. In this case since serious offences
are pending trial against him, the Government have rightly refused to
                                                                               B
permit him to retire voluntarily from service. The ratio in the above
judgment has no application to the fact situation and cannot be applied/ex-
tended to all the situations. Each case should be considered in its own
backdrop of facts. Until the jural relations of employer and employee
comes to a close according to law, the employer always has power to decide
and pass appropriate order.                                                    C

       It is seen in the service jurisprudence that before an incumbent
attains superannuation while an enquiry is contemplated against him, it
may be open to the Government to postpone the superannuation for
continuance of pending disciplinary proceedings for completing enquiry or D
to initiate action against a delinquent employee. When such is the situation,
it will always be open to the Government to decide whether or not to
permit an incumbent to retire from service. It is then contended by the
learned counsel that when the petitioner handed over the charge which was
accepted by the officers, there is no scope for the Government to refuse
acceptance of the resignation. We find no force in the contention. If the E
contention is given acceptance, it would lead to deleterious consequences.
For instance, if a public servant commits misappropriation of funds of the
Government, and after tendering his resignation and handing over the
charge walks away with booty. Acceptance of such contention would lead
to serious repercussions and consequences flowing therefrom would be F
disastrous to maintain discipline in service. Under these circumstances,
until the acceptance or rejection of request for voluntary retirement is
communicated to the petitioner, the petitioner is required to remain in
office and his handing over the charge without any order of the competent
authority and acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement have no
result.                                                                       G

     · The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

T.N.A.                                                  Petition dismissed.