THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 21065 of 2003 Between: Manda Narasimhareddy ….. Petitioner and The General Manger, C.M.M. (HOD) Stores, BHEL, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad & another ….. Respondents O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been instituted challenging the validity of an order passed by the respondent Bharat Heavy Electrical Limited (‘BHEL’, for short) on 22nd September 2003, accepting the offer of the writ petitioner for voluntary retirement. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Sri J.C.Francies, that when the respondent company has offered the voluntary retirement scheme benefits to their eligible employees, the writ petitioner has submitted his offer to retire voluntarily and at that time, he was working as a Senior Store Keeper Grade-II, whereas the respondent – BHEL has passed an office order dated 20th September 2003 that was just a couple of days before they accepted the voluntary retirement offer of the writ petitioner, imposing the following punishment: “ Demoted to lower post for a period of five years with cumulative effect.” The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that the offer of the writ petitioner to retire voluntarily was made while he was working as a Senior Store Keeper Grade-II, but not while he was working as Senior Store Keeper Grade-III. Therefore, accepting his voluntary retirement and seeking to confer the benefits treating him as a Senior Store Keeper Grade III is erroneous and illegal. Per contra, Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent would submit that the voluntary retirement scheme contained various conditions and one of the conditions stipulated therein was that if any disciplinary proceedings are pending against any of the employees, who offer to retire voluntarily, their offer for such retirement would be accepted based upon the result of the disciplinary proceedings. This controversy need not be resolved, for, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that if the writ petitioner’s right to canvass the correctness and validity of the office order, dated 20th September 1993, imposing the punishment on him by the disciplinary authority, is preserved, without rejecting the same on the plea that he has already accepted his status as a Senior Store Keeper Grade – III, pursuant to the order passed on 22nd September 2003, accepting his voluntary retirement offer, the writ petitioner would be a satisfied man. It is needless to say that every employee, who is subjected to disciplinary control, is entitled to canvass the correctness and legality of any order of punishment imposed against him. His subsequent conduct cannot disentitle him from pursuing such remedies, but however, in view of the order passed on 22nd September 2003, if the writ petitioner is handicapped in canvassing the correctness and legality of the order passed on 20th September 2003, imposing the punishment of reversion on him, I am sure the respondent Company will consider the same on its merits, totally uninfluenced by the fact that the writ petitioner has accepted the voluntary retirement benefits pursuant to the order passed on 22nd September 2003. In fact, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Sri S.V. Bhatt, would submit that both the streams are independent of each other and the disciplinary control is always subject to the appellate and revisional powers and, therefore, the question of testing the validity of the office order dated 20th September 2003 by the appellate or revisional authority cannot be linked up with the acceptance of voluntary retirement by the writ petitioner on 22nd September 2003. In view of this statement, all that is needed to be observed in this Writ Petition is, if the writ petitioner prefers an appeal to the appellate authority on or before 8th March 2010, against the office order, dated 20th September 2003, the appellate authority will consider the same on its merits totally uninfluenced by the acceptance of voluntary retirement benefits by the writ petitioner pursuant to the office order No. 246/2003, dated 22nd September 2003 and also uninfluenced by the fact that the writ petitioner has challenged the validity of the office order nearly six years after it is passed. It is needless to observe that depending upon the result of the appeal and revision, if any, the voluntary retirement benefits would appropriately be revised. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 5th February 2010 ksld