IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION NO : 3717 of 2006 Between: Regional Fire Officer, Central Region, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Sri M.A. Hafeez Ex-Fireman of Musheerabad Fire Station, H.No. 19-3-1089/C/20/A, Falaknuma, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue any writ or proceedings more particulars one in the nature of "Writ of Certiorari" and to call for the records related to and connected with the order dt. 24-7-2001 in O.A.No. 7445/1996 on the ﬁle of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad and to quash the same as erroneous and contrary to law and principle of natural justice and pass such order or orders as the Hon'ble High Court may as deemed ﬁt and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner: GP FOR SERVICES I Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.G.VIDYASAGAR ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Petition is ﬁled seeking a Certiorari to call for records relating to the orders of the A.P. Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A.No. 7445 of 1996 dated 24.07.2001 and quash the same as arbitrary and illegal. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant in O.A joined in service as Fireman on 2.9.1966 and it seems, he ﬁled an application seeking voluntary retirement on 4.1.1992 and later he did not report for duty. Further, the applicant approached the authorities in February 1995 with a request to withdraw his letter seeking voluntary retirement and also sought for reinstatement into service. However, the authorities did not permit the applicant to withdraw his letter of voluntary retirement and further initiated disciplinary proceedings in May 1995 and ultimately he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, applicant preferred O.A. and with the consent of both the parties, the matter was referred to Lok Adalat under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 and the matter was disposed of as under: “ T he case of the applicant is that he joined in service as Fireman on 2.9.1996. T he applicant seems to have made an application for voluntary retirement on 4.1.1992 and later the applicant did not report for duty. T he applicant has approached the authorities in February 1995 with a request to withdraw his letter of retirement and also he sought for reinstatement into Service. However, the authorities, did not permit the applicant to withdraw his letter of voluntary retirement and the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings in May 1995 and ultimately the Department dismissed him from service. Aggrieved by the above orders, the applicant has filed the present O.A. It is represented by the learned G.P that the applicant is not entitled for voluntary retirement, as he did not complete 20 years of qualifying service. He also brought to our notice that the applicant was on leave from 19.1.1984 to 14.3.1990. T he authorities have recorded the above period of 133 days as earned leave and remaining 120 days as Half pay leave on medical grounds and remaining period of 1994 days as extra ordinary leave. Further, the learned G.P. has contended that as per the Rule 43(i) of the A.P. Revised Pension Rules, the applicant is not entitled for voluntary retirement since the E.O.L i.e., ﬁve years six months and 14 days of quarterly qualifying service was deducted. But according to Rule 43(7) (iii) whenever notices of voluntary retirement as per rule 43 of A.P.R.P. Rules, 1980 are received from Government Servants, they may be settled expeditiously as per the proviso to sub-rule (4) of rule 43 of A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980 to avoid any unnecessary addition to qualifying service even by granting extra-ordinary leave for the period of delay. So we are not able to agree with the contention of the learned G.P. that the applicant’s letter for voluntary retirement was not considered, solely on the ground that the applicant has not completed 20 years of qualifying service. From the records it is clear that the applicant as already submitted his letter of voluntary retirement which in advance and before his letter for voluntary retirement is accepted he requested in February 1995 for posting orders. Whereas the Disciplinary enquiry was initiated in May 1995 itself. It is well settled principle and law that an employee can make a request for withdrawing voluntary application before it is accepted by the competent authority. T he above principle has been reiterated by various High Courts including the Apex Court. T herefore the above issue is not in dispute, and in the present case, the department has not even initiated disciplinary proceedings before May 1995. We perused the material placed on record. As seen from the record, the enquiry oﬃcer who is not competent to frame the charges and to issue the charge memo as was done so. T he applicant was awarded a major punishment and the Enquiry Officer was not competent to issue charge memo. T he concerned oﬃcers were present and we tried to impress the oﬃcers and also we brought to their notice the irregularities committed and tried to settle this case. We proposed that the applicant may be ;permitted to go on voluntary retirement from the date on which he completed 20 years of qualifying service and without any back wages and for settling the pensionary benefits accordingly. As the Regional Fire Oﬃcer, who is the superior authority to the appointing authority, has no objection for signing the award. T he O.A. is closed with a direction to permit the applicant to retire voluntarily on attaining the qualifying service of 20 years and the respondents are directed to pay the pensionary beneﬁts to him within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” Questioning the same, the present Writ petition is filed. We have heard the learned counsel appearing both sides and perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that with the consent of both the parties the matter was referred to Lok Adalat and the Lok Adalat settled the dispute between the parties with a direction to permit the applicant to retire voluntarily on attaining the qualifying service of 20 years and the respondents were directed to pay the pensionary beneﬁts to him within 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. No malaﬁdes are attributed either to the consenting parties or the learned members of Lok Adalat. Therefore, we see no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED ,J ___________________________ C.V.RAMULU, J Dt. 07.08.2008 KA ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 2. 2CD copies