ups_00437 — Permission for voluntary retirement under Rule 56-k of the Fundamental Rules can be withheld even in a case of acquittal, for the reason of ‘pendency of judicial proceedings' in view of the right of the Respondent to file an appeal against acquittal order passed by the trial court

Permission for voluntary retirement under Rule 56-k of the Fundamental Rules can be withheld even in a case of acquittal, for the reason of ‘pendency of judicial proceedings' in view of the right of the Respondent to file an appeal against acquittal order passed by the trial court — The chunk provided is about an application for voluntary retirement by a Postal Assistant named Smt. Sunita S. Tanvade, who was later denied permission due to pendency of judicial proceedings related... — Facts: Non-acceptance of application for voluntary retirement is the issue involved in this case. The Applicant joined as Postal Assistant in October, 1982 and was promoted to the cadre of Lower Selection Grade in June, 2017 and was allotted Ahmedabad GPO. Allegedly, one fraud in the accounts of Recurring Deposit of Monthly Income Scheme came to light in the year 2011 when the Applicant was working as the counter PA and was looking after the work of Senior Citizen Scheme. There were some subsidiary offenders, but the name of the Applicant was not recorded. However, during the trial of the criminal case against others, the Magistrate directed for re-investigation of the case with reference to the Applicant. The police authority after re-investigation, named the Applicant as a subsidiary offender for her procedural lapses. After trial, the trial court exonerated all the Postal Assistants including the Applicant from the charges levelled against them. After exoneration, the Applicant served three months' advance notice on 20-7-2021 to the department for grant of permission for voluntary retirement under Rule 48 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The notice was forwarded to the Respondent No.3, Postmaster-General and during the pendency of her case for voluntary retirement, the Applicant vide Letter, dated 30-10-2021 requested the Senior Postmaster to consider her voluntary retirement with effect from 11-11-2021. As per the case of the Applicant, she also relinquished her charge on that day. The charge relinquishment report had not been accepted by the Respondent and therefore, the same was sent through registered post along with application, dated 11-11-2021 by the Applicant surrendering her identity card and rubber stamp. Thereafter, the Senior Postmaster vide Communication, dated 11-11-2021 rejected notice sent by her seeking voluntary retirement for the reasons that the matter was under the process for further action on the judgment passed by the criminal court, Ahmedabad. This communication was received by the Applicant on 20-11-2021. Along with this communication, the Applicant also received the document which alleging that the Applicant had refused to receive the Communication, dated 11-11-2021. Thereafter, Senior Postmaster, Ahmedabad asked her to join the duty immediately and submit her explanation within 3 days as to why her unauthorized absence from 11-11-2021 should not be treated as dies non. Thereafter, one more request, dated 3-2-2022 by the Applicant was made for releasing her retiral benefit at the earliest. The Applicant also served a legal notice, dated 14-2-2022 on the Respondent. In response to the legal notice, the Respondent vide impugned Order, dated 7-3-2022, rejected the claim of the Applicant for retiral benefits. Being aggrieved with the above Communication, dated 7-3-2022, the Applicant by filing the OA before this Tribunal prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of the Respondent rejecting her prayer for a voluntary retirement. She also prayed for setting aside the notice, dated 10-1-2022. In the reply on affidavit it was admitted that the Applicant had tendered notice on 20-7-2021 under Rule 48 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, on completion of 30 years of service in the department for seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 1-11-2021. The notice was forwarded to North Gujarat Region, Ahmedabad for necessary action. The North Gujarat Region, vide its Letter, dated 26-10-2021 intimated to appraise the Applicant to extend the date of voluntary retirement if possible, so that her case may be decided properly. In response to it, the Applicant requested for extension of 10 days, vide her application, dated 30-10-2021. As per the case of the Respondent, vide Order, dated 11-11-2021, the Senior Postmaster, Ahmedabad, GPO considered and rejected the prayer for voluntary retirement on the ground that the Applicant was shown as one of the co-offenders in Ahmedabad, GPO fraud case. The matter was under the process for further action on the judgment passed by the Criminal Court acquitting the Applicant. But the Applicant refused to accept the letter. Thereafter, the letter was sent at her residential address with another Letter, dated 11-11-2021 whereby she was asked to join the duty immediately. However, she refused to accept both letters. Thereafter, copy of the letters were sent through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) which was delivered to the Applicant on 18-11-2021. As averred by the Respondent, the charge relinquishment report could not be processed as VRS notice had already been rejected. The Applicant was asked to join the duty by sending her the letter. However, she did not join the duty. Besides, she requested to process her pension case and asked to release retirement benefits. The Applicant made representation vide Letter, dated 18-2-2021 against direction for joining the duty. The same was rejected vide Letter, dated 22-3-2022. Thereafter, the Applicant sent legal notice, dated 12-2-2022 which was replied on 7-3-2022. As per the case of the Respondent, he filed an appeal against the judgment / Order, dated 18-6-2021 which is still pending. Justifying the impugned order, the Respondent prayed to reject this OA. In the rejoinder filed by the Applicant, it was averred that no proceeding departmental or criminal case was pending against the Applicant upon her exoneration in the criminal case at the time of serving notice, dated 20-7-2021 seeking voluntary retirement. The document showing refusal to accept the Letter, dated 11-11-2021 was a fabricated document. As per the case of the Applicant, notice period ended on 21-2-2022. Therefore, in the absence of any communication rejecting her application by the Respondent, the question of non-acceptance of notice for her voluntary retirement with effect from 1-11-2021 or any subsequent date did not arise as it automatically become operative with effect from 1-11-2021.