IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION NO : 448 of 2008 Between: B. Ramulu, S/o. B. Kasinatham, Resident of Kamareddy, Nizamabad Postal Division & District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Director of Postal Services, Hydeabad region, Hydeabad - 500 001. 2 The Senior Supdt. of Post Offices, Nizamabad Division. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ Order or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of certiorari calling for the records of the orders passed in O.A. No. 1321/2004 dated 6.11.2006 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad bench, Hyderabad and quash the same and further declare the petitioner is deemed to have been retired w.e.f. 29-10- 2004 under Rule 48 of C.C.S. Pension Rules and further direct the respondents to release all the retirement benefits to him and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.CH.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: (per THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI) Seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order, dated 06.11.2004 passed in O.A. No. 1321 of 2004 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad, and quash the same declaring that the petitioner is deemed to have retired with effect from 29.10.2004 under Rule 48 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 and further direct the respondents to release all retirement benefits, the petitioner filed this writ petition. The petitioner filed the above OA assailing rejection of the permission to retire from service under Rule 48 of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. The petitioner herein, while working as Postman, Kamareddy Head Office, submitted notice to the first respondent on 29.7.2004 seeking voluntary retirement from the forenoon of the following day on expiry of three months from the date of notice. While so, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings under Sub-Rule(1) of Rule 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 by order dated 24.8.2004 and consequently, the respondents by order dated 5.11.2004, did not permit the petitioner to retire from service. Assailing the action of the respondents in not permitting him to voluntary retire from service, the petitioner filed the above O.A. Case of the respondents – Department is that a charge memo was served on the petitioner on 30.11.2004 and the petitioner, though did not participate in the enquiry, has submitted his defence on 5.7.2006, after receiving the report of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted a representation, dated 8.1.2005 wherein he requested either to accept his voluntary retirement or to retain him at Kamareddy Head Office, till his retirement. The Tribunal has observed that the order of suspension was revoked by dated 30.12.2004. It is also observed that the petitioner attained superannuation at Jadcherla Head Office on 31.5.2005 and thus, accepted the order of transfer. It is also on record that the petitioner was paid subsistence allowance. Having regard to these facts, the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. observing that there remains no substance in the O.A. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein submitted an application dated 29.7.2004 seeking voluntary retirement, which was not permitted by the respondents, but by order dated 24.8.2004, the petitioner was placed under suspension and by order dated 5.11.2004, the petitioner was informed that his request seeking voluntary retirement has been rejected by the competent authority. The power of the appropriate authority either to accord or withhold such permission finds place in F.R. 56. It is also not in dispute that such permission can be withheld even in a case, where the employee has given notice of voluntary retirement but placed under suspension in the meanwhile. In the instant case, the order rejecting permission to voluntarily retire from service was communicated to the petitioner before 30.12.2004, on which date his suspension was revoked. The petitioner did not complain that he was not paid subsistence allowance. The Tribunal after elaborate analysis of the events, in our considered view, has rightly dismissed the O.A. Having gone through the impugned order and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not see any illegality in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No order as to costs. ____________________ T.MEENA KUMARI, J. __________________ G.CHANDRAIAH, J. March 3, 2008 MAS.