### VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS A MATTER OF RIGHT DURING PENDENCY OF MAJOR PENALTY DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.

The petitioner, an employee under the Union of India, remained unauthorizedly absent from duty during two spells between 2002 and 2004

Consequently, a major penalty charge-sheet was issued on 01.06.2005

During the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement on 17.05.2007, which was not accepted

Due to the petitioner's repeated absence from the enquiry hearings on various dates in 2005 and 2006, the department proceeded ex parte and passed an order of removal from service on 31.03.2007

The petitioner challenged this removal and the denial of retiral benefits before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The CAT dismissed the Original Application (O.A. 1249 of 2010) on 31.01.2011

The petitioner subsequently moved the High Court under Article 226/227

1. Whether an employee facing major penalty disciplinary proceedings has a right to have an application for voluntary retirement accepted

2. Whether the punishment of removal from service was legally sustainable and if the petitioner is entitled to retiral dues

The Court applied the relevant Pension Rules governing voluntary retirement, noting that such applications cannot be accepted if the employee is under suspension or facing major penalty proceedings

Furthermore, the Court applied the principles of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which limit interference in disciplinary matters to cases of palpable procedural impropriety, violation of natural justice, perversity in findings, or punishment that shocks the conscience under the doctrine of proportionality

The Court reasoned that the petitioner submitted his request for voluntary retirement roughly two years after the initiation of major penalty proceedings

Under the applicable Pension Rules, the department is not obligated to accept such requests during the pendency of grave charges, as doing so would allow delinquent employees to evade disciplinary consequences

Regarding the disciplinary process, the Court found that the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity but chose to remain absent, justifying the ex parte proceedings

Upon reviewing the record, the Court determined there was no evidence of procedural impropriety or perversity in the Enquiry Officer's findings

Since the charges of unauthorized absence were established and the procedure followed was lawful, the Court held there was no basis to invoke the doctrine of proportionality to interfere with the punishment

The Court affirmed that a removed employee is not entitled to retiral dues

Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal was affirmed