IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1693 of 2010 1. Navin Kumar Chaubey S/O Shri Ram Sager Chaubey R/O Village and P.O.- Rampura, P.S.- Singhware, Distt.- Darbhanga. ……..Appellant/Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The D.G. of Police, Bihar, Patna 4. The D.I.G. of Police, Saran Range, Chapra 5. The S.P., Chapra. ………Opposite Parties/ Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant:- Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv. Mr. Umapati Jha, Adv. For the State:- S.C.-I. 4/. 25.07.2011 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order passed on 02.04.2010 by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13008 of 2003, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the appeal. The petitioner-appellant herein had filed a writ petition against the order of termination of his service, which was passed after 10 years of his service without any show cause. The father of the petitioner- appellant herein was a constable and probably he was not in a position to serve the department effectively. As such he made a request to the Director General of Police through Superintendent of Police to retire him voluntarily and appoint his son in his place. The 2 request of the father of the petitioner-appellant herein was duly considered and he was appointed after following due procedure of law. Since the petitioner-appellant herein was appointed after following the due procedure of law against the vacancy caused by his father on account of his request made for voluntarily retirement offering the service of his son in his place. Rule 74 of Bihar Service Code gives liberty after completion of 20 years of his service or of attaining the age of 50 years an employee has power to seek voluntary retirement and it is up to the employer to retire the employee compulsory with or without condition. Since the voluntary retirement made by the father of the petitioner-appellant herein containing the request for appointment of his son and the request was considered and accepted and the Appellant’s father was retired and petitioner-appellant herein was given appointment, this form part of a condition of the acceptance of voluntary retirement. 3 Therefore, we hold that the appointment of the petitioner-appellant herein was regularized and could not have been terminated without giving him any opportunity, if there was any charge. Thus, the order of termination is set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Bhardwaj. ( Prakash Chandra Verma, J. ) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.)