V. Bhargava, J.
1. By this writ petition the petitioner challenges the validity of proceedings being taken for departmental action against him under Section 7 of the Police Act as well as the order placing him under suspension from the post of police constable. Various writs were prayed for but in effect the prayer made was for quashing the proceedings under Section 7 of the Police Act including the order of dismissal from service and for setting aside the order of suspension.
2. The only ground on which the prayer was sought was that, at the time when the disciplinary proceedings were started under Section 7 of the Police Act at well as at the time when the order of dismissal was made or the order of suspension was passed, the petitioner had ceased to be in police service, because he had voluntarily retired from the service. This submission was based on a letter sent by the petitioner on 1 May 1961 in which the petitioner purported to exercise his option to retire voluntarily from Government service. The question that has arisen is whether on the mere exercise of the option to retire from service, the petitioner ceased to be in police service.
3. The option to retire granted to a servant of the State of the Uttar Pradesh Government is governed by Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations, as amended in its application to Government servants in the service of the Uttar Pradesh Government. The amendments to Article 465 were made twice. The first amendment was made by a notification, dated 3 October 1947, and the second one by a notification, dated 15 October 1948. Clause (1) of Article 465 of the Civil Service Regulations on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner reads as follows:
A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who is permitted to retire after completing qualifying service for twenty-five years or on attaining the age of fifty years.
This article of the regulation does not give any absolute right to a Government servant to retire on merely indicating his option to do so. It specifically mentions that a pension is granted when the Government servant concerned is 'permitted to retire.' For becoming entitled to pension, the Government servant, therefore, is to obtain permission to retire, which indicates that no absolute right is given to the Government servant to retire without his request for retirement being accepted by the Government or the appropriate authority empowered by the Government in that behalf.
4. Some reliance was placed in this connexion on the language of Para. 106 of the Manual of Government Orders and on a Government order, dated 3 May 1948, issued under the signature of the Chief Secretary, Paragraph 106 of the Manual of Government Orders has no statutory force at all. It only summarize what has been laid in Government orders or Government notifications and is supposed to be a convenient summary for the guidance of the Government servants. No reliance can, therefore, be placed on it. So far as Government order, dated 3 May 1948, is concerned, that also has no statutory force or the force of law. It does not purport to be a regulation or rule made by the Governor in exercise of the powers vested in him by Section 241 of the Government, of India Act, 1935. It is really in the nature of a letter containing executive instructions to the various heads of departments. This Court cannot base its decision in a writ petition on such executive orders only. The writ Jurisdiction can only be exercised for the purpose of enforcing orders or rules which have the force of law. The contents of this letter of 3 May 1948 did not have any such force. Consequently the petitioner is not entitled to rely on this Government order for obtaining a decision from this Court that he must be deemed to have retired as soon as he exercised his option of voluntary retirement by sending his letter, dated 1 May 1981.
5. The reasons given by us above lead to the conclusion that the view expressed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 1958 of 1960 decided on 21 January 1963 is perfectly correct and that the earlier decision in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 1340 of 1968 did not lay down the correct law.
6. In view of our decision given above that the petitioner had no absolute right to retire by merely indicating his desire to do so, the present petition falls, because the petitioner was never granted permission by any appropriate authority to retire and was placed under suspension instead, and further, departmental proceedings were started against him. These orders of suspension and of starting departmental proceedings were made at a time when his request for voluntary retirement not having been accepted, he was still in Government service as a police constable. The proceedings were, therefore, valid and there is no sufficient ground for interfering with the orders made.
7. The petition falls and is dismissed, But, we make no order as to costs.