1. Employee submitted a notice of voluntary retirement, denied retrospective application of departmental chargesheet initiated after the expiry of the notice period. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 354
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.K. MAHESHWARI, VIJAY BISHNOI, JJ.
UCO Bank and Others – Appellants
Versus
S.K. Shrivastava – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020
WITH
UCO Bank and Others – Appellants
Versus
S.K. Shrivastava and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 376 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Respondent-in-person
Voluntary retirement becomes effective if not refused by the authority within the notice period; subsequent disciplinary proceedings against a retiree are invalid.
Headnote:(A) UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 - Regulation 29 - UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 - Voluntary retirement - Employee provided notice for voluntary retirement which was not refused in stipulated time, thus deemed accepted - Show-cause notice alone does not amount to initiation of disciplinary proceedings; requires positive communication of refusal - Subsequent dismissal after retirement deemed arbitrary and unlawful. (Paras 16, 32, 44)
(B) Disciplinary proceedings - Employee cannot be subjected to disciplinary action after effective retirement - Retention requires refusal of voluntary retirement communicated within notice period. (Paras 24, 30)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was appointed and promoted within UCO Bank, submitted notice for voluntary retirement which was not accepted during its notice period, leading to subsequent disciplinary action labeled as unjust.
Findings of Court:
The employee’s voluntary retirement became effective by law due to non-refusal of the notice, thus any subsequent disciplinary action post retirement is invalid.
Issues: The court considered the effect of non-communication of refusal of retirement and the nature of disciplinary proceedings initiated post-notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for voluntary retirement to be effective, the appointing authority must actively refuse within the notice period; failure to do so results in automatic acceptance of retirement.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Employer contended disciplinary pendency under regulation bars voluntary retirement; employee argued retirement became effective upon notice period expiry without express refusal. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
3. Voluntary retirement is effective by operation of law upon notice period expiry unless the authority issues a positive order of refusal within that period. (Para 16 , 17 , 26 , 29 , 30 , 34 , 35 , 43 )
4. Unless expressly refused within the notice period, an employee's application for voluntary retirement matures into a deemed cessation of service by statutory operation. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 43 )
5. Appeal dismissed; disciplinary proceedings post-retirement are void, and the employer is directed to settle all terminal benefits within three months with interest. (Para 45 , 46 )
6. Does a show-cause notice regarding alleged irregularities constitute initiation of disciplinary proceedings for retirement purposes?
No, a mere show-cause notice seeking explanation for allegations is not equivalent to the formal institution of disciplinary proceedings and cannot unilaterally stay an employee's right to voluntary retirement. (Para 36 , 37 )
7. What is the consequence of an appointing authority failing to communicate a refusal of a voluntary retirement notice within the specified period?
The voluntary retirement becomes effective by operation of law upon the expiry of the notice period. The employer must communicate a positive refusal within the notice period to prevent this outcome. (Para 26 , 27 , 43 )
8. Can an employer initiate disciplinary inquiry against an employee after the effective date of their voluntary retirement?
No. Once an employee has validly retired, the jural relationship of master and servant is severed, depriving the employer of jurisdiction to initiate or continue disciplinary proceedings. (Para 21 , 23 , 45 )
JUDGMENT :
J.K. MAHESHWARI, J.
1. The Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020 is arising out of the judgment dated 07.01.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 824 of 2018 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (hereinafter ‘High Court’) preferred against the judgment dated 28.09.2018 in WP (S) No. 1620 of 2012, wherein the direction for grant of terminal benefits to Respondent No. 1 was issued. Learned Single Judge was of the view that after completion of the notice period of three months as specified in the notice for voluntary retirement or from the date of stopping to attend the service, the Respondent be treated retired voluntarily. Since he stood retired prior to institution of the disciplinary proceedings, therefore, he is entitled to all consequential benefits as per Rules governing the field. The Division Bench reaffirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge inter alia observing that since option of refusal of notice for voluntary retirement was not exercised by the Appellant-Bank before the expiry of notice period i.e. 04.01.2011 or even prior to 16.05.2011 i.e. the date since when the employee decided to severe the master servant relationship, therefore, communication made subsequently to refuse the request of voluntary retirement cannot be given retrospective effect to undo an act which was deemed to have been done.
2. In Civil Appeal No. 376 of 2020, the judgment dated 12.07.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 321 of 2019 is under challenge, whereby, the judgment dated 24.04.2019 passed in WP (S) No. 5109 of 2012 was assailed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition opined that the employee stood retired with effect from the date of severance of master servant relationship i.e. 16.05.2011, therefore, the chargesheet issued on 05.03.2012 after retirement is liable to be quashed. In view of the judgment dated 28.09.2018 delivered in WP (S) No. 1620 of 2012 which was affirmed by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge quashed the chargesheet and the consequential order of dismissal along with costs of Rs. 25,000/-.
3. In the present two appeals filed by the Appellant-bank, the Respondent herein was the petitioner before High Court. The former writ petition relates to grant of terminal benefits to him and the latter relates to challenge to chargesheet and his dismissal from service. Consequent upon the decision in the previous writ petition, the latter writ petition was allowed. Since both the appeals have been filed in relation to the same employee, therefore, both the Civil Appeals are heard analogously and being decided by this common judgment.
4. The issue pertaining to the voluntary retirement is governed by the UCO Bank (Employees’) PENSION REGULATIONS , 1995 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Pension Regulation’) as stood on the date on which notice for voluntary retirement was submitted by the Respondent. The service conditions of the employee are governed by the UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Service Regulation’) applicable for termination or discontinuation from employment of the Bank. The said Regulation was later amended on 30.04.2011.
FACTUAL MATRIX
5. The facts unveiling the controversy are that the Respondent was appointed as Clerk-cum-Godown Keeper in UCO Bank on 10.09.1983 and promoted as an Assistant Manager with effect from 01.01.2000. He was further promoted as Manager w.e.f. 26.04.2007. In July 2010, while working as Branch Manager at Raipur Branch, some suspicious transactions in the account of M/s. Bhanu Road Carriers and M/s. Progressive Exim Ltd. came to the knowledge of the Appellant. Internal correspondence was made from Head Office to Zonal Office regarding the same. In the meantime, Respondent sent a notice of voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010 to the General Manager, Kolkata. In response, Zonal Office asked for fresh application under the Pension Regulation. The Head Office also sought information regarding vigilance, non-vigilance or court case and an undertaking t
