C.W.P. No. 12367 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12367 of 2010 Date of Decision 16.07.2010 Rattan Chand --Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ---Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL Present: Mr. Madan Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. Kumar, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 04.05.2010 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal) in O.A. No. 466- PB-2009. The petitioner had sought voluntary retirement by giving notice on 04.11.2008 in pursuance of Rule 48-A of Central Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972 (for brevity 'the 1972 Rules). Thereafter, various notices were sent and respondent No. 4 i.e. Chief Commissioner of Income Tax directed him to continue in service even after expiry of notice period. The basic reasons for asking him to continue in service was that a vigilance complaint was pending against him and the matter was referred to the Central Vigilance Commissioner for advise. The department had recommended initiation of disciplinary proceedings for inflicting major penalty. The request made by the petitioner was declined on 18.09.2009. Moreover, the instructions C.W.P. No. 12367 of 2010 2 dated 13.02.2006 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi under the 1972 Rules specifically provide that an officer should not be allowed to retire even after expiry of three months' notice period until the approval of the competent authority is conveyed by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi. Accordingly, the authorities were directed to pass order to the effect that officer was not to retire until the approval is received. The Tribunal has recorded categorical finding that as per CVC guidelines, voluntary retirement of such an officer could be accepted only with the approval of the Finance Minister and prior concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the considered view that in case of vigilance enquiry pending before the Central Vigilance Commission, an officer cannot be permitted to retire voluntarily nor he could be deemed to have retired merely because the period of notice given by the petitioner has expired. The Tribunal has rightly reached the conclusion that such an officer must face enquiry and cannot go scot-free. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE July 16, 2010 Atul