Voluntary retirement becomes effective if not refused by the authority within the notice period; subsequent disciplinary proceedings against a retiree are invalid.

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