Voluntary retirement takes effect absent timely refusal, even while disciplinary proceedings are pending.

The petitioner, a Bank of Baroda officer, sought voluntary retirement and opted for pension by letter dated 27 November 1994, before the Bank of Baroda Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 came into force. The Bank rejected that request.

After the Regulations were notified, the Bank invited him to submit a fresh application; he did so on 11 April 1999, giving three months’ notice and reserving his claim under the earlier request.

A charge sheet had been issued the previous day, alleging unauthorised absence, disobedience, and outside employment. The Bank did not identify any order refusing or withholding the fresh notice within its three-month period.

The enquiry continued and the petitioner was dismissed on 20 December 2000. The petitioner died during the writ proceedings and was represented by his legal representative.

Whether the petitioner’s request dated 27 November 1994 resulted in retirement on 27 February 1995 under Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations.

Whether the fresh notice dated 11 April 1999 became effective after three months despite the pending disciplinary proceedings.

Whether retirement effective from 11 July 1999 invalidated the continuation of the disciplinary enquiry and the subsequent dismissal, and what relief followed.

Regulation 1 of the Bank of Baroda Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that the Regulations come into force upon publication in the Official Gazette, unless otherwise specified; Regulation 29 permits an employee with the requisite qualifying service to retire on giving at least three months’ written notice to the appointing authority.

Under Regulation 29(2), the notice requires the appointing authority’s acceptance, but retirement takes effect on expiry of the notice period if the authority has not refused permission before then.

In UCO Bank v. S.K. Shrivastava, the Supreme Court held that a refusal or withholding order must be passed and communicated within the notice period; pending disciplinary proceedings alone do not prevent retirement under such a provision, and post-retirement disciplinary action and dismissal are untenable absent an applicable regulatory authority to continue them.

The Court distinguished Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar and A.K. Bindal v. Union of India, which concerned voluntary-retirement schemes operating through offer and acceptance rather than Regulation 29’s express proviso.

The 1994 request was made before the Regulations came into force, and the Bank rejected it on that basis. The later IBA communication contemplated fresh consideration on a fresh application, which the petitioner submitted in April 1999; accordingly, the earlier request did not establish retirement in February 1995.

The 1999 notice, by contrast, was made under the operative Regulations and was received by the Bank. The Bank’s 1996 letter concerned an earlier request and could not constitute refusal of the later notice; nor could the charge sheet or pending enquiry substitute for a timely order refusing or withholding permission.

Since no such order was identified within the three-month period, retirement took effect on 11 July 1999.

The Bank could not thereafter continue the enquiry or impose dismissal, and Regulation 50 did not sustain the dismissal because the outside employment preceded retirement and no order under that Regulation had been made.

It quashed the disciplinary proceedings insofar as continued after that date and the dismissal order dated 20 December 2000.

The Bank was directed to calculate and release admissible retiral and pensionary benefits within three months of service of a certified copy of the judgment, including amounts payable to the petitioner until his death and family pension thereafter, in accordance with the applicable scheme and Regulations; no salary or back wages were awarded for periods when he did not work.

The petition was allowed in part, with no order as to costs.