(-1-) hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2240 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Petitioner Versus Mrs. Sarika Satish Pradhan ... Respondent Mr. V.P. Malvankar, A.G.P. for Petitioner. Mr. M.D. Lonkar for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & R.M. SAVANT,JJ. R.M. SAVANT,JJ. R.M. SAVANT,JJ. DATED: APRIL 30, 2007 DATED: APRIL 30, 2007 DATED: APRIL 30, 2007 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Respondent had applied for voluntary retirement. That was rejected. Pursuant to that the Respondent filed Original Application No. 12 of 2007. That has been allowed by order dated 17.1.2007. The tribunal has noted that there is no power in the Petitioners to withheld the voluntary retirement considering language of Rule 65. We find no reasons on the facts to differ from the view taken. At the same time, the tribunal has also noted in Para 12 of the impugned order bearing in mind Rule 26 and 27 that it is open to the Petitioners to conduct an enquiry as set out therein. . It is always open to the Petitioners even in the (-2-) case of voluntary retirement to proceed with the enquiry. We find no reason for interference. Hence, Petition rejected. (R.M. SAVANT,J.) (R.M. SAVANT,J.) (R.M. SAVANT,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)