Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

R.K. Sharma vs State Of Bikaner And Jaipur And Anr on 12 March, 2025

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:53179]                     (1 of 10)                       [CW-4584/2004]


       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4584/2004

R.K. Sharma S/o Shri P.N. Sharma, Aged about 67 years, C/o
Sharma           Ice         Factory,              96,         Industrial        Area
Hanumangarh Junction Hanumangarh. [Presently residing at Flat
No. M-102, Palam Apartment, G.F. BIJ WASAN, Delhi-110061].
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
1. State Bank of India, Through its Chairman, Corporate Centre
State Bank Bhawan, 1st Floor Madame Cama Road Mumbai-
400021.
2. The State Bank of India, Through its Chief Zonal Manager,
Zonal Office, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional
office, Sri-Ganganagar.
                                                                    ----Respondent


 For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. S.P. Sharma
 For Respondent(s)             :     Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Counsel
                                     assisted by Mr. Chayan Bothra


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

Judgment Reserved on: : 16/10/2024 Judgment Pronounced on: : 12/03/2025

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").

 [2024:RJ-JD:53179]                    (2 of 10)                          [CW-4584/2004]


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

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (3 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

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.

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (4 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

An appeal was also submitted by him to the Executive Committee

on 10th August 2002, but nothing was done by the competent

authority. A further reminder was also sent on 12th August 2002

but to no avail. Instead of granting voluntary retirement, the AGM

issued letters asking for his explanation, which the petitioner

replied to on 21st August 2002. Furthermore, many other letters

and representations were made by the petitioner to the competent

authority and the AGM asking for payment of retirement benefits

consequent to his voluntary retirement, but no reply was given to

his grievance.

2.5 A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by

issuing the charge sheet dated 5th December 2002, which was

received by him on 18th December 2002. Therefore, for the first

time, an inquiry against the petitioner was initiated on this day,

i.e., when the petitioner was no longer in the service of the

respondent Bank. In fact, the petitioner ceased to be in the Bank's

service on 31st July 2002 by operation of law or by virtue of the

second proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations of

1979. A reply to the charges was submitted by the petitioner on

28th December 2002, whereby he refuted the allegations leveled

against him.

2.6 The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 18/2003 on 20th July 2003 in

the court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar,

wherein an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with

Section 151 CPC was decided on 24th April 2004, declining the

temporary injunction to the petitioner, and was withdrawn.

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (5 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

2.7 The petitioner is making a challenge against the provisions of

regulation 19 as well as provisions contemplated under order

Annexure P/1 with regards to voluntary retirement being in

violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

3. The counsel for the petitioner re-iterated the facts of the

case and mentioned the grounds for the same.

4. A reply has been filed by the counsel for the respondents

refuting the arguments presented by the counsel for the

petitioner. The petitioner's claim for voluntary retirement (VRS)

lacks merit as his application was never accepted and mere

forwarding of the application did not establish any intent of

acceptance, nor did it preclude pending or future disciplinary

action. It is further contended that at the time of his request, the

petitioner was already involved in serious financial irregularities,

including improper loan disbursements. Consequently, disciplinary

proceedings were initiated, and a charge sheet was served on

17.07.2002. Further, it is stated that his VRS application was duly

rejected on 29.07.2002, a decision later ratified by the Executive

Committee on 08.08.2002. Despite being fully aware of the

rejection, the petitioner wrongfully assumed retirement and joined

another bank on 03.08.2002. His attempt to evade disciplinary

proceedings and subsequent punishment is evident. The writ

petition is merely an afterthought to escape liability. It is

contended that all actions were taken fairly and in accordance with

regulations, the petition should be dismissed in the interest of

justice.

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (6 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the

material placed on record.

6. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it

is evident that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from

the respondent bank, duly providing three months prior notice, for

which he also received an acknowledgment of receipt. A crucial

point to consider is that the petitioner was relieved of his duties on

15th June 2002--fifteen days before his actual voluntary

retirement date--clearly indicating that the bank was aware of his

request for voluntary retirement. Furthermore, until 30th July

2002, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the

competent authority, i.e., the Executive Committee, regarding the

rejection of his VRS application. Additionally, no intimation was

given to him about any disciplinary proceedings being initiated

against him. This delay and lack of communication demonstrate

that the bank neither promptly rejected his application nor

informed him within the stipulated time, leading the petitioner to

reasonably assume that his request for voluntary retirement had

been accepted.

7. Now, turning to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations,

1979, which governs the age of retirement, it is pertinent to

reproduce the relevant provision for reference:-

"19. Age of retirement

19 (1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attainingthe age of fifty eight years or upon the completion of thirty years. whichever occurs first.

Provided that the competent authority may. at its discretion. extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty years service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank.

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (7 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

Provided further that an officer who had joined the service of the Bank either as an officer or otherwise on or after the 19th July 1969 and attained the age of 58 years, shall not be granted any further extension in service. (effective from 20th December 1984)

Provided further that an officer may, at the discretion of the Executive Committee be retired from the Bank's service after he has attained 50 years of age or has completed 25 years* service as the case may be, by giving him three months' notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof.

Provided further that an officer who has completed 25 years' service may be permitted by the Executive Committee to retire from the Banks service, subject to his giving three months" notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or partly waived."

A bare perusal of the relevant clause of the regulation clearly

stipulates that an officer who has completed 25 years of service in

the bank may retire, provided that the Executive Committee

grants permission, subject to a three-month notice in writing or

payment in lieu thereof. In this case, the petitioner duly applied

for voluntary retirement in accordance with the prescribed

procedure but did not receive any communication regarding the

status of his application. As a result, he reasonably deemed his

retirement as accepted. Notably, his notice period was set to

expire on 30th July 2002, yet his request was rejected by the GM

only on 29th July 2002--just a day before its expiry and it also

states that the Executive Committee has to accord its post facto

approval for denial of the request of the petitioner for voluntary

retirement. This reflects the bank's intent to deny the petitioner's

voluntary retirement despite his strict adherence to the procedural

requirements, including timely submission of notices, so this

cannot be allowed as the prayer cannot be kept pending till the

last day of his application of notice to intimate the incumbent that

you have committed misconduct and your voluntary retirement

has been canceled. This Court has also taken note of the fact that

the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 15th June 2002, a full

fifteen days before the expiration of his notice period, so, if, the

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (8 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

bank wanted to reject the application of voluntary retirement then

why they relieved the petitioner 15 days prior to his expiration of

his notice period. This clearly indicates that the bank was well

aware of his voluntary retirement request and, at that time,

appeared to acknowledge it. However, despite this, the bank

ultimately chose to reject his application at the last moment,

raising serious concerns about its intent and fairness in handling

the matter.

8. This Court is of the view that, as per Regulation 19(1) of the

Service Regulations, only the competent authority has the power

to accept or reject a voluntary retirement application. In this case,

the designated competent authority was the Executive Committee.

However, contrary to the established procedure, the rejection of

the petitioner's voluntary retirement request was issued by the

General Manager, who was officiating as the Assistant General

Manager--an individual who lacked the necessary authority to

make such a decision and without the approval of the competent

authority, it shall be deemed not appropriate or justifiable. This

procedural irregularity raises serious concerns about the validity of

the rejection and the manner in which the petitioner's request was

handled.

9. This Court is of the opinion that the process followed by the

bank in this matter is legally flawed. An employee who has duly

completed the required service period cannot be left in a state of

uncertainty while awaiting a decision on his voluntary retirement

application from the competent authority. Such undue delay and

lack of clarity are unjust and procedurally improper. Furthermore,

the subsequent charges of misconduct brought against the

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (9 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

petitioner under Regulation 50 of the Service Regulations, 1979,

are also legally unsustainable and in the given circumstances,

these charges should be quashed, as they appear to be an

afterthought rather than a legitimate course of action.

10. A coordinate bench of this Court addressed similar issues in

the case of Bhanwar Lal Nagga v. State of Rajasthan (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2015) decided on 17.10.2022. In

its judgment, the Court held that the decision to grant permission

for voluntary retirement must be made by the appointing

authority. Furthermore, it was clarified that voluntary retirement

takes effect automatically upon the expiration of the notice period,

provided the employee has duly complied with all procedural

requirements. This ruling reinforces the principle that an employee

cannot be left in uncertainty regarding their retirement status due

to delays or inaction on the part of the appointing authority.

11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed in the

following terms:-

a) The petitioner shall be considered to be retired from the

respondent bank service by virtue of regulation 19 of the Service

Regulations, 1979 with effect from 31.07.2002.

b) The impugned orders dated 29.07.2002, rejecting the

petitioners application as well as order dated 05.12.2002 issuing

the charge-sheet to the petitioner are hereby quashed and set

aside.

c) The respondent is directed to provide all retirement and

pensioner benefits to the petitioner as provided under Pension

regulations of 1995 treating petitioner to have voluntarily retired

[2024:RJ-JD:53179] (10 of 10) [CW-4584/2004]

with effect from 31.07.2002 in accordance with the Service

Regulations, 1979.

12. The stay petition stands disposed of.

(FARJAND ALI),J 197-Mamta/-