1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3193/2003. ( RAM SINGH PATWARI VS. STATE & ANR. ) DATE OF ORDER : 16.03.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. N.L. Joshi for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Ladrecha for the respondents. For remaining behind the bars for a period of more than 24 hours, the petitioner was placed under suspension by the appointing authority vide an order dated 30.05.1989. The order aforesaid was revoked on 03.12.1991 as a consequent of the acquittal of the petitioner by the authority competent. An application, thereafter, was submitted by the petitioner on 10.03.2003 seeking voluntary retirement as per provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996. The application aforesaid without assigning any reason was rejected by the Collector (Land Records), Sri Ganganagar on 27.06.2003. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The arguments advanced is that if the appointing authority do not consider it appropriate to accept the application for voluntary retirement given under sub-Rule 1 of Rule 50 of the Rules of 1956, then he should prescribe adequate reasons for the same and in the instant matter, no reason at all is given for rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner. 2 A reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondents stating therein that the application seeking voluntary retirement was rejected by the competent authority on the ground that against the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court, an appeal preferred by the state government is pending before the Hon'ble High Court and result of that matter have effects on services of the petitioner. Heard counsel for the parties. The only reason given by the respondents for not accepting the application submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement is that judicial proceedings are yet pending against him, however, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has already been acquitted by the trial court. The petitioner sought voluntary retirement on the ground that he has already crossed the age of 58 years and because of his domestic conditions, it was not possible for him to continue in service. The petitioner after acquittal by the trial court served the respondent State for more than 12 years and then only he submitted an application for voluntary retirement. It is also well settled that conviction or acquittal by the trial court is deemed to be final till any alteration is made by the appellate court. In such circumstances, mere 3 pendency of an appeal against an order of acquittal cannot be adequate reason to deny the request seeking voluntary retirement. Pertaining to note here is that the government can very well protect its right in the event of acceptance of the appeal by exercising powers under Rule 7 of the Rules of 1996 that empowers the Governor to withhold or withdraw pension. In such circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the appointing authority erred while rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The appointing authority is directed to reconsider the application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement ignoring the fact regarding pendency of an appeal by the state government against the order of acquittal of the petitioner. The appointing authority is required to consider and decide the application submitted by the petitioner for voluntary retirement within a period of one month from the date the petitioner serves a certified copy of this order upon him. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/