STATE OF U.P. & ORS versus LUXMI KANT SHUKLA

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 531 · Decided: 19-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 10 S.C.R. 531 
. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
v. 
· LUXMI KANT SHUKLA 
(Civil Appeal No. 7105 of 2011) 
AUGUST 19, 2011. 
[R. V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
U. P. FUNDAMENTAL RULES, 1942: 
A 
B 
F. R. 56 (c) and (d), proviso (i)(ii) proviso - Effect of c 
notice for voluntary retirement given by employee to 
employer pending disciplinary proceedings - Held: Such 
notice would be effective only if it is accepted by the 
appointing authority - In the instant case, the officer gave 
notice for voluntary retirement during pendency of disciplinary 0 
proceedings against him ~ Since no order of acceptance was 
passed by the appointing authority, the officer continued in 
service even after the period of notice of three months expired 
in August 2009 and his,services were terminated only with the 
order of dismissal passed on 07.09.2009 - Service Law. 
E 
The respondent, a member of .the Provincial Civil 
Services of the State of U.P., wa!> placed under 
suspension on 12.2.2008. On 19.2.2008, a, c~arge-sheet 
containing 16 charges was served on him and~ Inquiry 
Officer was appointed. On 28.5.2009, the resportd~nt filed 
F 
his reply to the charge-sheet to the Inquiry Officer and 
endorsed a copy thereof to the Principal Secretary 
(Appointment Section -
II), Government of U.P. 
requesting him to exonerate him from the charges and 
instead grant him voluntary retirement from service under G 
FR 56 of the U.P. Fundamental Rules, 1942. On 
30.11.2009, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report 
to the State Government holding that the charges against 
the respondent were proved. By order dated 16.12.2009, 
531 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 10 S.C.R. 
A the respondent was intimated that his representation 
dated 5.10.2009 for voluntary retirement was not accepted 
by the Government. The respondent filed Civil Misc. W.P. 
No. 5 (SB) before the High Court for quashing the order 
dated 16.12.2009 and for directing the State Government 
B to pay all his retirement benefits admissible under FR 56. 
By order dated 7.9.2010 the respondent was dismissed 
from service. The respondent challenged the said order 
in another CMWP No. 1386 (SB) of 2010. On 16.9.2010 
the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the order 
c dated 16.12.2009 by which the State Government had 
rejected the request of the .respondent to accept his 
voluntary retirement and directed the Government to 
consider the respondent's request afresh. (The High 
Court did not interfere with the subsequent dismissal 
0 order dated 7.9.2010 pending consideration in CMWP No. 
1386 (SB) of 2010.) Aggrieved, the State Government filed 
the appeal. 
The question for consideration before the Court 
was: Whether the respondent.stood voluntarily retired 
E from service before the order of dismissal was passed by 
the State Government. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 A reading of clause (c) of FR 56 would 
F show that a government servant on attaining the age of 
45 years, may by notice to the appointing authority, 
choose to voluntarily retire from service. Clause (d) of 
FR 56 further provides that the period of such notice shall 
be three months. However, the proviso after proviso (i) 
G and (ii) to Clause (d), states that the notice given by the 
government servant against whom a disciplinary 
proceeding is pending or contemplated, shall be 
"effective only if it is accepted by the appointing 
authority." In this proviso, however, it is clarified that in 
H the case of a "contemplated disciplinary proceeding" the 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. v. LUXMI KANT SHUKLA 
533 
government servant shall be informed before the expiry 
A 
of his notice period that it has not been accepted. [para 
13] [542-E-H; 543-A] 
1.2 In the instant case, the disciplinary proceeding 
was initiated against the respondent on 19.02.2008, when 
8 
the charge sheet containing 16 charges was issued 
against him and the Enquiry Officer was appointed to 
enquire into the charges. It is only after the initiation of 
the disciplinary proceeding that the respondent made a 
request in the copy of his reply dated 28.05.2009 to the 
C 
appointing authority to accept his retirement under 
Clause (c) of FR 56. Thus, even if the request of the 
respondent made on 28.05.2009 is treated as the notice 
of voluntary retirement, on 28.05.2009 a disciplinary. 
proceeding was pending against him and as per the 
language of the proviso, such notice of voluntary · D 
retirement would be "effective onl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.