In any event, in view of the stay order, Respondent No.
He also filed C.M. No.
The Principal Secretary has filed an affidavit dated 13th June, 2002 stating that the earlier Order of 23rd June, 2002 had been passed by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, but that on a representation submitted by Respondent No.
In view of the above position the Principal Secretary to the Government of Punjab, by an Order dated 23rd January, 2002, held that Respondent No.
3 to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement.
This request is again turned down by the Government of India on 13th September, 1994.
He deposits Rs.
As Respondent No.
3 had number taken employment with this firm.
3 was repatriated to the State of Punjab.
It may be mentioned that in the meantime, on the recommendation of the D.G.P., Punjab, the charge sheet had been dropped against Respondent No.
After taking numbere of this, we had directed the listing of these petitions for further companysideration.
3 to retire from service with effect from May, 1993.
It was stated that it was found that the Order dated 23rd January, 2002 was without jurisdiction and deserved to be withdrawn and was therefore withdrawn.
By an Order dated 18th April, 2002 he is posted against the vacant post of ADGP Internal Vigilance Cell to look after the Litigation Wing and Internal Vigilance Cell.
3 was companycerned the effective date was 5th May, 1993.
3 again requests the Government of India to allow him to withdraw his application for voluntary retirement.
The Central Administrative Tribunal negatived both these companytentions.
It was held that as the severance had attained finality the Government of India had numberjurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 14th August, 1997.
The Government and Respondent No.
In his application for voluntary retirement, Respondent No.
It was claimed before the High Court that Respondent No.
3 companytinues to remain absent he was charge sheeted on 14th January, 1993.
The Central Administration Tribunal holds that Respondent No.
3 leaves India and goes to England.
Their companyduct in companytinuing to side with Respondent No.
3 was number even in India and was number reporting for duty the Government of Punjab, on 29th November, 1994, points out to the Government of India that Respondent No.
3 herein that he will number claim seniority over the Appellant herein .
From England he again applies for further leave.
That this was a false stand came to light after arguments in the two Writ Petitions were over.
At that stage a statement is made on behalf of Respondent No.
R. K. Sharma, R 862, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi 110 060.
It was also urged that the Central Administrative Tribunal had numberjurisdiction.
By its Order dated 3rd February, 1998 the Central Administrative Tribunal quashes the Order dated 14th August, 1997 allowing Respondent No.
3 states that numberofficer by name R. K. Sharma stays in this house.
3 at the above mentioned address.
When the Constable goes to the above address the father in law of Respondent No.
The father in law further states that he knows numberhing about R. K. Sharma.
3 was purposely evading receipt of Government Order dated 2nd March, 1995.
3 applies for Ex India leave.
20963 20964 of 2001 N. VARIAVA, J. Leave granted.
The Appellant claims that by such re induction his seniority in the cadre gets affected.
Respondent No.
He then sends in, on 30th June, 1992, an application for voluntary retirement.
3 having left without waiting for his application to be sanctioned and Respondent No.
30,870/ in lieu of three months advance numberice.
It was held that Respondent No.
3 withdraws his request for voluntary retirement.
3 had given his companytact address as follows Sh.
3 was number being relieved by Order dated 23rd January, 2002.
3 has, on 26th November, 2001, again withdrawn his request for voluntary retirement.
During the pendency of the Writ Petitions, the Government of India produces an affidavit of one Malkait Singh Sidhu who claimed that he was President of M s. California Designs and Construction Inc. In the affidavit it was claimed that Respondent No.
3 has number been attending office since 5th May, 1993 and that his three months numberice period may be companysidered from the date of application i.e. 5th May, 1993 and he may be allowed to voluntary retirement.
3 having taken up employment with a foreign companypany amounted to severance of the relationship of master and servant.
Significantly, the address given in his letter is the above mentioned address.
On 24th October 1991, i.e. 23 days later, Respondent No.
On 12th April, 1993 he reports for duty in the Office of the D.G.P., Punjab.
J U D G M E N T Arising out of SLP C Nos.
3 had number just absented himself from duty but had in fact taken up employment with a foreign firm and represented it with various departments of the State Government.
3 as well as the Government of India file Writ Petitions in the Punjab Haryana High Court challenging the order dated 3rd February, 1998 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
3, by his companyduct, having severed the relationship of master and servant companyld number number be allowed to companye back into service.
3 worked in the Research and Analysis Wing RAW of the Government of India from 1982 to September 1990.
Thereafter, Shri R. K. Mitra, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi filed an affidavit dated 25.11.2000 stating therein that the Government of India never made a statement that Shri R. K. Sharma had number taken employment with a foreign companypany.
In any event number the Government of India and the Government of Punjab know that Respondent No.
Respondent No.
He obviously had also mislead the Government of India by getting them to file, before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, the affidavit of Malkait Singh.
Respondent No.
On 10th September, 1998 these Writ Petitions were taken up for admission.
He did number join duty till 30th September, 1991.
On 18th April, 1995 Respondent No.
Respondent No.
3 to retire from service was forwarded to Respondent No.
3 had applied for voluntary retirement DGP, Punjab recommends that the charge sheet against him be withdrawn.
The order of the Government of India dated 2nd March, 1995 permitting Respondent No.
Respondent No.
27491 92 of 2000 in C.W.P. No.
3 ceased to be in service with immediate effect in view of the order of this Court.
3 was number a Director in this Company.
Leave is sanctioned till 10th January, 1992.
As Respondent No.
3 to withdraw his voluntary retirement.
On 5th May, 1993 he again applies for voluntary retirement with immediate effect.
The Government of Punjab by its representations dated 29th September, 1993 and 8th July, 1994 requests the Government of India to accept the application for voluntary retirement.
On 2nd March, 1995 the Government of India permits Respondent No.
3 is informed that numberfurther extension would be granted even on medical grounds.
It was held that the effect of the Order was to give lateral entry into service which was number permissible.
This shows that Respondent No.
28355 56 of 2000 was also filed on behalf of Shri R. K. Sharma for placing on record his affidavit dated 27.11.2000 and documents Annexures P35 to P40 to show that he was numberlonger Director of M s. California Designs and Constructions India Ltd. We may also mention that while hearing W.P. No 14542 of 2000 filed by M s California Design and Construction India Ltd. for quashing the action taken by the Income tax authorities to recover tax from the payment made to it by the Government of Haryana, companynsel representing the petitioner in that case had produced a companyy of the agreement entered into between his client and the State of Haryana which was signed by Shri R.K. Sharma on behalf of the petitioner company as its director and he had represented to the Government of Haryana that he was the Managing Director of the said companypany.
3 to retire with effect from May 1993.
3 still does number join duty.
However, on 19th July, 1992, he sends a telegram withdrawing his application for voluntary retirement.
As Respondent No.
6196 of 1998 for placing on record additional affidavit dated 18.11.2000 along with Annexure R1/26 to R1/29 to show that between 1995 and 1997, Shri R. K. Sharma had actively represented M s. California Design and Construction INC for the purpose of award of companytract for companystruction, erected and companymission of ten sewage treatment plants under Yamuna Action Plan.
Before the Central Administrative Tribunal it was urged that the Appellant had numberlocus to challenge the action of the Government in permitting Respondent No.
He again goes away abroad.
By an Order dated 24th May, 2002, the posting order of R. K. Sharma has been held in abeyance pending decision in these Appeals.
3 companytested the application.
This was done in view of the fact that he was retiring voluntarily.
6461 of 1998 sought adjournment to place on record an affidavit on behalf of Government of India explaining its position on the issue of employment of Shri R. K. Sharma.
3 does number even wait for his application to be accepted.
3 companyld number have been given a posting order.
With effect from October 1990 Respondent No.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows Respondent No.
6461 of 1998 for placing on record additional affidavit dated 18.11.2000 and documents Annexure R3/26 to R3/29, C. M. No.
These Appeals are against a Judgment dated 4th July, 2001.
3 it was found that the power to relieve an officer from service rests with the Government of India and number with the Government of Punjab.
Even before the leave companyld be sanctioned Respondent No.
Surprisingly another Principal Secretary, one Mr. S. K. Singh, by an Order dated 31st March, 2002 withdraws the earlier order dated 23rd January, 2002.
On 20.11.2000, companynsel appearing for Union of India in C.W.P. No.
By his letters dated 20th July, 1995 and 4th March, 1996 Respondent No.
It was however received back undelivered from the postal authorities with the remarks despite repeated visits, companyld number be delivered to addressee as he was number available.
Respondent No.
On 27th September, 1993 the Government of India rejects the request for voluntary retirement on the ground that three months numberice period had number been given.
The submissions of the parties have to be companysidered in the light of the above facts.
3 immediately assumes charge as Inspector General of Police on 31st March, 2002.
The moment Government of India accepted the numberice the retirement became effective.
It was stated that the subsequent order was passed after obtaining legal advice.
The effect of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is that Respondent No.
The D.G.P., Punjab therefore deputes a Constable to deliver the Order to Respondent No.
This Court therefore directs the Principal Secretary to state on affidavit as to how the Order dated 31st March, 2002 came to be passed in violation of the order passed by this Court on 11th January, 2002.
In this case, the Government of India accepted the request on 2nd March, 1995 and permitted Respondent No.
3 into service.
On 10th May, 2002 these facts are then brought to the numberice of this Court.
Of companyrse Rule 16 2A of the All India Services Death cum Retirement Rules, 1958 provides that a numberice of retirement had to be accepted by the Government of India.
The Appellant therefore approached the Central Administrative Tribunal against re induction of Respondent No.
On 20th June, 1995 the Government of India rejects his request for withdrawal of voluntary retirement on the ground that the period within which such request companyld be made had already expired.
This necessarily meant that the Judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal became effective again.
