UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulation 29 – UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20(3)(ii) – Respondent-Branch Manager sent a notice of voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010 giving three months’ notice as required, effective till 04.01.2011 – In the meantime, a show-cause notice dtd.11.11.2010 was issued to the Respondent seeking explanation regarding some suspicious transactions however, initiation of disciplinary proceedings was not indicated therein – Vide letter dtd.14.05.2011, Respondent stopped working with the bank w.e.f. 16.05.2011 – On 29.06.2011, Respondent was informed that his request for voluntary retirement was not accepted – Respondent was subsequent charge-sheeted – Non-acceptance of voluntary retirement and consequent initiation of inquiry and dismissal, challenged by the Respondent – Writ petitions allowed by Single Judge directing grant of terminal benefits to the Respondent, order confirmed in writ appeal by the High Court: Held: Impugned order upheld – Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation governs the voluntary retirement and its acceptance until refused by the appointing authority within notice period, otherwise it would become effective on lapse of the time specified in the notice – A positive act of passing an order of refusal is required to be undertaken by the appointing authority – Thus, the request of voluntary retirement if not refused within the period specified in the notice or withheld, the deemed approval of voluntary retirement would be effective on expiry of notice period – Officer submitted his notice of voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010, giving three months’ notice as required, which would be effective till 04.01.2011 – Show cause notice issued in the meantime by the Appellant on 11.11.2010 did not indicate the intention to institute disciplinary proceedings in terms of Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the Service Regulation – Nonetheless, the existence of such a show cause notice itself is not sufficient without refusal by competent authority to stop the automatic operation of the notice of voluntary retirement – In absence, the notice of voluntary retirement would take its course – In the present case, no such order of refusal or order of withholding was passed by the competent authority within the stipulated period – The notice of voluntary retirement, therefore, became effective automatically by efflux of time upon the expiry of the three-month period on 04.01.2011 – The nonapproval communicated on 29.06.2011, after expiry of the notice period and cessation of work vide notice dtd.14.05.2011 with effect from 16.05.2011, is of no avail to the bank – When an employee decides to severe master servant relationship and serves a notice indicating such intention specifying the period, by operation of law it will become effective in absence of any order of refusal – The subsequent act of issuing chargesheet and consequential order of dismissal is also not justified in law – No infirmity in the view taken by the High Court. [Paras 26, 28, 30, 33, 43, 45] Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious construction – UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulation 29(1) and (2) – UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20(3)(i)-(iii):
Held: Provision of Regulation 20(3)(i), (ii), (iii) of Service Regulations and Regulation 29(1) and (2) of the Pension Regulation, ought to be read in tandem harmoniously – Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii) of the Service Regulation deals with cessation of service and when it would not affect the pendency of disciplinary proceedings – It puts an embargo only in two specific contingencies, first, where the officer is placed under suspension, second, where a show-cause notice has been issued for institution of disciplinary proceedings – In either of the situation, an officer would require prior approval of the competent authority – Indeed it is true that voluntary retirement is also a mode to ‘leave or discontinue’ service, therefore to such extent, Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii) may have relevance – Nonetheless, voluntary retirement is not a mere act of leaving or discontinuing, rather, a distinct right of an employee that is available on completion of the requisite number of years of service, etc. – As per intent of Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii), the employee cannot leave without approval of the competent authority pending the disciplinary proceedings irrespective of the fact that he has tendered notice to that effect – However, on literal reading of proviso to Regulation 29(2) of Pension Regulation, the intent thereof seems to be otherwise i.e., unless refused by the competent authority within the period prescribed in the notice, the voluntary retirement shall become automatically effective – It is in this context provisions of both regulations ought to be harmoniously constructed – While Regulation 20(3) (i) & (ii) of Service Regulation permits the authority to not grant ‘approval’ where disciplinary proceedings are pending; Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation also achieves the same effectively, through its proviso, by permitting the authority to ‘refuse’ voluntary retirement, but within the notice period – Therefore, essence and intent are the same subject to some restrictions. [Para 34]
UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20(3)(iii) – When not applicable:
Held: If disciplinary proceedings against an officer are pending and he wishes to leave/discontinue or resign, he may be permitted to do so by prior approval of the competent authority in writing – Such notice, if any, given by the officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings, shall not be given effect unless accepted by the competent authority – The pendency of the disciplinary proceedings would include suspension or issuance of a show-cause notice for institution of the disciplinary proceedings – Regulation 20(3)(iii) of the Service Regulation applies where the disciplinary proceedings were initiated prior to attaining the age of superannuation, and prescribes the recourse to the bank after attaining the age of superannuation, which is not of much relevance in the facts of this case. [Para 32]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.