IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04 .02.2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T. RAJA W.P.No.23472 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2009 1. The Union of India Central Board of Direct Taxes Rep. by its Chairman, North Block, New Delhi 2. The member, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary to Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, North Block, New Delhi .. Petitioners Vs. 1. Shri Lodaya Tilakchand Kooverji 2.The Central Administrative Tribunal, Rep by its Registrar, City Civil Court Campus, High Court, Madras. . . . Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to call for the proceedings of the 2nd respondent Central Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.723 of 2007 dated 28.04.2009 and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.V.Vijayashankar For Respondents : Mr. Lodaya Tilakchand Kooverji party-in-person R1 ********************* J U D G M E N T
T.Raja, J.
The present writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA.No.723/2007 dated 28.04.2009 whereby the impugned order refusing promotion to retire voluntarily by the respondents from the service of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India was quashed. Further the petitioners were directed to disburse the retirement benefit applicant/respondent herein with 8% interest and to release the balance as admissible under GPF provident fund rules. The short facts leading to the filing of the application before the tribunal is follows :
(i) The respondents applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal belongs to the 1972 batch of the Revenue service after completing 34 years of Group-A service submitted his notice to retire voluntarily from the service w.e.f. 01.02.2007 from the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal, the said notice was issued by the applicant/respondent herein under FR.56(k)(1). The case of the respondent herein is that though on the expiry of statutory notice period of three months the applicant/respondent is deemed to have retired on the afternoon on 31.07.2007 w.e.f. 01.02.2007, surprisingly, the petitioner department informed the applicant/respondent herein by communication dated 01.02.2007 that his notice of voluntary retirement cannot be accepted since his request for voluntary retirement had not been cleared from the Vigilance Department.
2. Thereafter, the applicant/respondent made a detail representation to the department/petitioner herein on 11.04.2007 asking them to pass necessary orders to relieve him from service and also for the payment of his retirement benefit without any delay. As there was no response from the department, the applicant/respondent made further representation to the department through proper channel to Hon’ble President of India, with earnest request to retire him as per the earlier letter sent to the department. Again by letter dated 21.08.2007, the department/petitioner herein has indicated its decision for not accepting the notice of voluntary retirement of the applicant/respondent herein was yet to be cleared from the Vigilance Department. Since, the petitioner is residing in Chennai from June 2007 he was constrained to move before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal at Chennai on the ground that the impugned order refusing to grant approval for voluntary retirement does not indicate that it is the order passed by the competent authority as required by FR.56(k)(1) and as per Note 1 to FR.56(k)(1) appropriate authority is the appointing authority of the post or service from which the concerned Government servant wants to retire. In the present case, the appointing authority is the Hon’ble the President of India, to whom the applicant (Respondent herein) submitted the notice of voluntary retirement on 31.10.2006. But there is no mention in the impugned order that the decision to withhold permission is that of the Hon’ble President of India, on this basis it was further contended that withholding of permission from retiring voluntarily is only illegal.
3. In reply, the respondents/petitioner herein filed detailed counter opposing the application of the applicant/respondent herein. The respondents herein by seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.02.2007 under FR.56(k)(1) submitted a notice dated 31.10.2006 to the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the said notice was received in the Board only on 06.11.2006. Since FR.56(k)(1) indicates that the notice period should not be less than 3 months, the said notice was actually received on 06.11.2006 indicates clearly that the notice fell short of three months and there was no request by the applicant/respondent herein for accepting notice of less than 3 months. Accordingly, the applicant/respondent herein Sri Lodhaya Thilakchand Kooverji was informed that his request cannot be acceded to before expiry of the minimum notice period of 3 months. Even as per Rule 48-A (2) of the Central Civil Service Pension Rule 1972 and also the “Guidelines for acceptance of notice” under GOI’s decision below Rule 48-A of the same rule such notice cannot be accepted by the appointing authority which indicates that it cannot be taken for granted. Since in the present case, some Disciplinary Proceedings was also pending and the same was also communicated by the competent authority on 01.02.2007 which is within the period of notice reckoned from 06.11.2006 being the date of receipt of notice in the Board the non acceptance of the notice for voluntary retirement was in order. Therefore, the case of the applicant/respondents for voluntary retirement cannot be accepted.
4. Further, the conclusion and acceptance of the petitioner’s request for voluntary retirement is not automatic as claimed by the respondents herein since the appointing authority is required to accept the request for voluntary retirement as per FR.56(k) or Rule 48 of the CCS pension rules. Further, as the Disciplinary Proceedings were also pending against the respondents, the vigilance clearance was not received, therefore, by taking into account all these vital aspects, the writ petitioner herein by order dated 01.02.2007 has rightly rejected the request for voluntary retirement. However, the tribunal without considering the vital fact that the first respondent herein has submitted a notice for voluntary retirement on 31.10.2006, to take effect from 01.02.2007, but the same was received only on 06.11.2006, erroneously not noticing the date of receipt of the notice as 06.11.2006, wrongly came to the conclusion that that the respondent is deemed to have been retired voluntarily from 1.2.2007.
5. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the refusal of the petitioner department to grant approval for voluntary retirement to the respondents was legally correct, since the vigilance department has refused clearance for voluntary retirement on the ground that the charge memo dated 06.10.2007, issued by the petitioner department against respondents for alleged irregularities committed by the respondents with reference to the order passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act is pending for consideration alongwith two other charge memos dated 07.02.2008 and 29.05.200, however the party-in-person appearing for the respondents has brought to the notice of this court an order dated 09.12.2009 passed by the 3rd petitioner Secretary to Government of India, Department of Revenue, CBDT, North Block, New Delhi whereby an approval of the Hon’ble President has been conveyed to the acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement from service of Shri Lodaya Tilakchand Kooverji (IRS Civil Code No.72034) under FR.56(k)(1) and accordingly Shri Lodaya Tilakchand Kooverji stands retired from service w.e.f.01.06.2007. In view of subsequent order passed by the Secretary to Government of India, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, which shows that the necessary approval has been granted by accepting the notice of voluntary retirement, nothing survives in this present writ petition. Accordingly, in view of the order dated 09.12.2009 issued by the 3rd writ petitioner herein, this Court finds no substance in the present writ petition, hence the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.Ps are closed. No costs.
tsh/rkm
To
1. The Union of India
Central Board of Direct Taxes
Rep. by its Chairman, North Block,
New Delhi
2. The member,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block,
New Delhi.
3. The Secretary to Government of India,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Direct Taxes,
North Block, New Delhi
4.The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Rep by its Registrar,
City Civil Court Campus,
High Court,
Madras