As per case facts, Respondent No. 3, an officer, had unauthorized absences, applied for voluntary retirement, then withdrew it, then reapplied, paid notice, and left. Government of India accepted his ... retirement, but the order wasn't communicated. Later, R3 again withdrew his request, which the Government ultimately accepted, despite his foreign employment during absence. Appellant challenged this re-induction due to seniority impact. The question arose whether the master-servant relationship severed upon initial Government acceptance of voluntary retirement, regardless of communication, and if R3's abandonment of duty for foreign employment precluded withdrawing his request. Finally, the Supreme Court reversed the High Court, holding the master-servant relationship severed upon Government acceptance of voluntary retirement, even without communication. R3's prolonged absence and foreign employment constituted abandonment of service. Re-induction via a "backdoor method" was impermissible. The Court restored the Tribunal's order, confirming R3 ceased Government service from the effective retirement date and must return any received pay or benefits.