are no guidelines provided in the Rules. The expression 'public interest' which figures in Rule 3.1(a), is missing from Rule 3(3). Rule 3.1(a) deals with the cases of premature retirement arming at the State Government with a right to retire an employee prematurely in larger public interest. Those employees who are corrupt, inefficient or otherwise dead wood could be shown the door because it would serve a larger public interest. However, such an expression is missing when we read Rule 3(3), which gives a right to the employee to seek voluntary retirement after 20 years of service, the question then is in which cases the State Government could refuse to the request for voluntary retirement. One category of cases which may justify refusal is where departmental proceedings for infliction of major penalty might be pending because an employee may not be permitted to get away with misconduct embezzlement and misappropriation. Therefore, the argument of Mr. Sehgal, learned State counsel that notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance by the appropriate authority have to be construed in the aforesaid fashion. In a given case of alleged misconduct, the authority may be justified in rejecting the request to the pre-mature retirement but not on the ground that there is scarcity of a particular class of employees. We cannot accept the contention that requirement of permission in the Rule is mandatory particularly when Clause (c) of Rule 3 says that if appropriate authority has not refused the permission for retirement before the expiry of the 90 days period then the retirement become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. Clause (c) in fact
