9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (8) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the letter of May 14, 1996 was, appropriately given on that very day to the General Manager (Personnel) of United Bank of India. 5. In my opinion, this point of routing through the proper channel is a point without substance. The submission of the notice to the General Manager (Personnel) was quite sufficient. I mention this decision of mine at the very beginning without recounting further facts so that the other points in controversy are not mixed up with this unsubstantial defence. 6. Upto the expiry of August 11, 1996 the respondents did nothing. At least, nothing was known to the writ petitioner. 7. The respondents stated in their affidavit-in-opposition that on August 13, 1996 the Regional Manager wrote a letter to the writ petitioner refusing his request for voluntary retirement and that the writ petitioner had been informed by long distance telephone in the morning of August 13, 1996 about the refusal of acceptance of the notice of retirement. 8. Another letter dated August 12, 1996 is also annexed to the affidavit-in-opposition wherein the gist of a telegram, received by the Chief Manager (Pension) is reproduced. That telegram is also a telegram of refusal of ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. These were current at the material time which run thus: 29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement: (1) On or after the day of November 1, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service; (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under Sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (3)(a) An employee referred to in Sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor . 17. Previously the voluntary retirement of the persons in the same post as the writ petitioner would be guided by Administrative Instructions being the Service Regulations, 1979; the relevant Regulations at that time Regulations 28-A and 28-B which are set out below: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in AIR 1978 SC 1109: 1978-II-LLJ-34, and the case of the State of Haryana, recently . 22. From these Mr. Sinha submitted that the Supreme Court has now clearly laid down that a Service Regulation permitting voluntary retirement by the employee gives him a right which can be unilaterally exercised by the employee on his own volition; such an exercise will snap the service effectively, provided, of course, the Rule or Regulation in question has been duly complied with. 23. In my opinion, the above submission of Mr. Sinha has to be accepted in view of the authorities and accept it. 24. Mr. Bhattacharya gave me the case of Baljit Singh, which is a communication to this effect that even after expiry of a prescribed period of notice, voluntary retirement might still not become effective and complete; Baljit Singh's case was not followed by the Supreme Court in the case of the State of Haryana where a larger Bench decision was followed. Thus, if it is found that the notice was properly given by the writ petitioner it cannot but be held that he has effectively and duly retired. 25. Mr. Bhattacharya also submitted that if notice of refusal is given by the respondents . b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or any show-cause made out as to why a disciplinary proceeding should not be started against him. In my opinion, the word before occurring in Sub-regulation 3(i) is referable to the cases of deemed pendency of disciplinary proceeding mentioned in Sub-regulation 3(ii). Since none of the contingencies happened in the instant case the notice given by the writ petitioner is not invalidated. The letter of February 14, 1996 referred to by Mr. Bhattacharya is not a show-cause of any type; it called for an explanation from a subordinate with copy to the vigilance; the writ petitioner gave an explanation, although a little, in June 1996. 33. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is mentioned that the writ petitioner's notice is invalid. No ground is given therefor. From a Court's query the respondents argued a point that the notice of 90 days is not a notice of three months. According to them, three months after May 14, 1996 would expire after the expiry of August 13, 1996. 34. Even if that is so, the respondents do not show that even on August 13, 1996 they had lost control over the letter of the Regional Manager of that date; here also the receipt by Birpara Branch is dated A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 days. 39. The writ petitioner's notice of retirement was therefore valid, validly served and it became effective with the expiry of August 12, 1996 because within that time no effective refusal was made by any of the respondents. 40. Both the writ applications succeed. So far as the first writ, W.P. 11167 (W) of 1997 is concerned, there will be rule absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the writ petition. So far as the second writ being No. W.P. 23847(W) of 1997 is concerned, there will be rule absolute in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) of the writ petition; although no writ petition was filed with regard to the November, 1998 notices and subsequent proceedings relating to the second disciplinary proceeding, those also have to be quashed as a consequential relief simply because the writ petitioner had retired after August 12, 1996. Such quashing is hereby made. 41. All the arrears due to the writ petitioner should be released with immediate effect, in any event not later than four weeks from the date hereof. Since the writ petitioner had retired by serving an appropriate notice after August 12, 1996, but the respondents had not accepted such retire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
