DR. BALJIT SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 695 · Decided: 09-12-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

DR. BALJIT SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA 
DECEMBER 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, 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. 
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. 
Jasbir Malik and M.S. Dahiya for the Petitioner. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
F 
G 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.