A penalty imposed after disciplinary proceedings conclude does not bar voluntary retirement unless it terminates service.

The petitioner, a Senior Medical Officer at Hukkeri Civil Hospital, sought voluntary retirement by representation dated 30 August 2023.

A departmental inquiry arising from the misappropriation of hospital funds culminated in a penalty of withholding increments without cumulative effect; the petitioner also paid the amount ordered to be recovered.

The State rejected his voluntary-retirement request on 27 January 2025, stating that it could not be considered during the penalty period and that he could apply again after that period expired.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge, reasoning that voluntary retirement was not a matter of right and that the penalty justified the rejection.

The petitioner challenged the Tribunal’s order before the High Court

Whether imposition of a penalty after the departmental inquiry had concluded could, by itself, bar consideration of the petitioner’s earlier request for voluntary retirement

Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of the petitioner’s challenge warranted interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The Court relied on Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat, Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, and State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal.

These authorities establish that the effect of a voluntary-retirement notice depends on the governing service rules: where the rules permit the employer to withhold permission in specified circumstances, the competent authority must pass and communicate a positive order withholding permission within the applicable notice period; mere pendency or contemplation of disciplinary proceedings does not, by itself, prevent retirement from taking effect.

The Court further held that a penalty imposed after the inquiry has concluded does not, without more, bar voluntary retirement, unless the penalty terminates the employee’s service.

The petitioner’s request was made before the disciplinary inquiry had concluded, but the inquiry later culminated in a penalty.

By the time the State rejected the request, the inquiry was no longer pending.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that the subsequent imposition of a penalty could not, by itself, justify refusing to consider the request; the Tribunal had therefore erred in treating the penalty as a bar to voluntary retirement.

The Court did not order that retirement be granted, but found that the request required reconsideration under the applicable rules and in light of its observations

It directed the State to reconsider the petitioner’s voluntary-retirement application, bearing in mind the Court’s observations, within eight weeks of receiving a copy of the order