INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER versus MAHAVEER KHARIWAL

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 144 · Decided: 22-01-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER
v.
MAHAVEER KHARIWAL
(Civil Appeal No. 2760 of 2010)
JANUARY 22, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law:
Voluntary retirement – Rejection of – Propriety – Application
seeking voluntary retirement with request for waiver of requirement
of three months notice – Rejection of, on the ground that the
employee was not eligible under Pension Regulations, 1995 –
Thereafter disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the
employee – Writ petition – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court
– Division Bench of High Court quashed the order whereby request
for voluntary retirement was rejected – Appeal to Supreme Court –
Held: The application for voluntary retirement was absolutely in
consonance with Regulation 29 and rejection thereof was bad in
law and contrary to Regulation 29 – Employee shall be entitled to
all retiral benefits – The consequent proceedings of departmental
enquiry will be null and void and shall be non est – Indian Bank
Employees Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulation 29.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. On considering the communication dated
20.04.2004 rejecting the application of the employee for voluntary
retirement, it does not reflect any compliance of Sub-Regulation
3(b) of Regulation 29.  As such, no reasons whatsoever have
been assigned/given except stating that the request is not in
accordance with Pension Regulations, 1995.  Even otherwise, it
is required to be noted that the communication dated 20.04.2004
was on the last day of the third month, i.e., 90th day from the date
of submitting the voluntary retirement application.  Therefore,
there was no reason to reject the prayer of curtailment of the
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 144
144
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
period of notice considering the grounds mentioned in Sub-
Regulation 3(b) of Regulation 29.  Be that as it may, the rejection
of the application for voluntary retirement was not on the ground
that notice of three months is not given.  The request made by
the employee for curtailment of notice of three months was also
not considered on merits.  Therefore, the application for voluntary
retirement was absolutely in consonance with Regulation 29 and
that the rejection was bad in law and contrary to Regulation 29.
The Division Bench of the High Court is absolutely justified in
quashing and setting aside the communication dated 20.04.2004.
[Para 10] [153-E-H; 154-A]
2. As regards eligibility for voluntary retirement in view of
proviso to Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 29, there is a specific
finding given by the Division Bench that the said proviso shall
not be applicable to the facts of the present case,  as in the present
case the employee was on transfer to Overseas Branch and was
not on deputation. The order dated 19.03.1998, says that the
employee is posted as Chief Manager, Overseas Branch.  Even
when he was relieved from the Overseas Branch to join at Delhi
Branch in the communication dated 25.08.2003 (Annexure P5),
it speaks about the transfer order dated 13.05.2003.  It is not the
order of repatriation. Therefore, proviso to Sub-Regulation (1)
to Regulation 29 shall not be applicable. [Para 11][154-B-D]
3. It is true that in the present case the decision was taken
before the expiry of the period specified in the notice, i.e., on or
before three months (last day of the third month), however, the
rejection of the application for voluntary retirement itself is found
to be illegal and bad in law.  Therefore, the aforesaid shall not
affect the ultimate conclusion reached by the Division Bench of
the High Court.  The communication dated 20.04.2004 rejecting
the voluntary retirement application was bad in law and contrary
to Regulation 29.  Therefore, the employee shall be entitled to
all retiral benefits on the basis of his voluntary retirement.  Once,
it is held that he is voluntary retired as per his application dated
21.01.2004 and the rejection of the application of voluntary
retirement is held to be bad in law, all other subsequent
INDIAN BANK AND ANOTHER v. MAHAVEER KHARIWAL
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
146
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
proceedings of departmental enquiry will be null and void and
shall be non est, as after the voluntary retirement, there shall not
be an employer-employee relationship. [Para 12][154-E-H;
155-A]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2760
of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2009 of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.