IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3459 of 2010 1. UMESH PANDEY S/O SRI RAMESHWAR PANDEY R/O VILL.- PATHERHA, P.S.- MAHARAJGANJ, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL) BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (B) SPECIAL CELL, BIHAR, PATNA 6. THE STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA 7. THE JOINT STATE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 02. 14.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to have joined service in the year 1984. As on 11.9.2008, when he was granted V.R.S. under Rule 74 (b) of the Bihar Service Code, he fulfilled the conditions for the same. On 9.2.2003 he was placed under suspension, while on deputation in the Transport Department for less revenue collection. Charges were framed on 11.3.2003 replied to by him on 5.4.2003. On 14.1.2004 he was sent back to his parent (Home) department. He represented on 7.2.2007 that the departmental proceedings were still pending. On 21.4.2008 the order of suspension was revoked by the parent (Home) department with directions to expedite the departmental proceedings. He applied for V.R.S. on 4.8.2008. This 2 application was allowed by Letter No. 1577 of 2009 on 11.09.2008 with effect from 30.9.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner questions the continuance of the departmental proceedings even thereafter affecting his retiral benefits. Learned counsel for the State prays for time to seek instruction and/or issuance of directions to conclude the departmental proceedings expeditiously. The writ petition raises a pure question of law. Rule 74 (b) of the Bihar Service Code reads as follows:- “74 (b) (i). Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sub-rule, a Government servant may, after giving at least three months previous notice, in writing, to the appointing authority concerned retire from service on the date on which such a Government servant completes thirty years of qualifying service or attains fifty years of age or on any date thereafter to be specified in the notice: Provided that no Government servant under suspension shall retire from service except with the specific approval of the State Government.” If the respondents had chosen not to accept his application for Voluntary Retirement in view of the pendency of the departmental proceedings, matters would have been entirely different. If the petitioner was making a claim for a deemed retirement under Rule 74 (b) on expiry of the period of three months of notice, 3 again matters have been very different. But when the respondents by a conscious executive decision accept his request for Voluntary Retirement and relieved him, the master servant relationship stood severed. If the master servant relationship stood severed by a conscious act of the respondents, the petitioner remains no more a Government servant amenable to proceedings under the service Rules. The allegations did not relate to any financial misappropriation or embezzlement or gross misconduct. The petitioner has been allowed Voluntary Retirement by a conscious policy decision during the pendency of the proceedings. A presumption arises that the respondents themselves did not consider it a matter serious enough to continue with the master servant relationship for the purposes of a departmental proceedings. The suspension and departmental proceedings are deemed to have ended by necessary implication from the date of his voluntary retirement. The order of suspension dated 9.2.2003 and the departmental proceedings are therefore held to be no more sustainable or existing with effect from the date of retirement. If the respondents have not initiated any proceedings under 43 (b) of the Pension 4 Rules against the petitioner prior to the institution of the writ application on 17.2.2010 they are precluded from doing so. The application stands conditionally allowed and the petitioner is held entitled to his post retirement benefits subject to the fulfillment of the condition. The application is allowed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)