An employee's voluntary retirement is deemed accepted upon the expiry of the notice period if no timely rejection is communicated, and procedural irregularities in handling such applications invalidate rejections.

Order :

(FARJAND ALI, J.)

GRIEVANCE/PRAYER

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents for not granting him the voluntary retirement and has also not provided the retirement and consequential benefits as provided under State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as “service regulations, 1979”).

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed under the respondent Bank on the post of Clerk on 8th September 1969. Several promotions were accorded to the petitioner because of his unblemished service record, including after completing 25 years of service in the year 1994.

2.1 An order dated 28th September 1994 was issued by the respondent Bank laying down provisions regarding “voluntary retirement.” It was issued under Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, 1979. It is provided therein that an officer who has completed 25 years of service may be permitted to retire from the Bank’s service, subject to giving 3 months' notice in writing. 2.2 An application dated 30th April 2002 was submitted by the petitioner through the proper channel seeking voluntary retirement from the respondent Bank’s services. By this, he gave 3 months' notice to the Bank, and the period of 3 months was to expire on 31st July 2002. The application was forwarded to the concerned authority on 30th April 2002. A letter dated 1st May 2002 was received by the petitioner from the AGM, acknowledging receipt of the application/notice of the petitioner dated 30th April 2002 for seeking voluntary retirement. On 15th June 2002, the petitioner was relieved from his duties, and until 31st July 2002, he did not receive any communication from the competent authority, i.e., the Executive Committee, rejecting his application for voluntary retirement. He also did not receive any communication from the authority under the Service Regulations of 1979 initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. In view of the statutory provisions contained under the proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, the petitioner ceased to be in the Bank’s service. In this manner, the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank’s service with effect from 31st July 2002 upon expiry of the notice period.

2.3 On 17th July 2002, he was served with a letter defeating his claim for voluntary retirement as well as all his consequential retirement benefits and seeking his explanation with respect to some alleged irregularities. It was not a charge sheet issued under the provisions of the Service Regulations of 1979 but a letter merely calling for an explanation from the petitioner. Upon receiving the letter, he replied refuting the allegations leveled against him. On 29th July 2002, an impugned order was issued by the CM, who was officiating as AGM, whereby the request of the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement was declined. As per the regulation, only the ‘competent authority’ can issue the communication of acceptance or rejection of the request for voluntary retirement.

2.4 A representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Executive Committee of the Bank for redressal of his grievance with respect to his application for seeking voluntary retirement. Another representation was made on 3rd August 2002 to the AGM of the Bank. This representation letter was also addressed to the Senior Vice President, Bank of Punjab, whereby a request was made for an extension of the period for joining his duties by 31 days. However, he was not informed about the extension of the period for joining duty. Therefore, he had no alternative except to join duty with the Bank of Punjab, in terms of the appointment order dated 3rd May 2002 issued to him by the Bank of Punjab.

An appeal was also submitted by him to the Executive Committee on 10th August 2002, but nothing was done by the