LexUCO BANK & ORS. versus SK SHRIVASTAVA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 37 : 2026 INSC 328 UCO Bank & Ors. v. SK Shrivastava (Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020) 07 April 2026 [J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Under Regulation 29 of UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 (Pension Regulation), a notice of voluntary retirement if not refused within the prescribed period of three months or before the date as specified in the notice, whether such notice would be deemed to be accepted on expiry of such period; whether issuance of show cause notice dated 11.11.2010 by the Appellant may fall within the purview of institution of the disciplinary proceedings and such proceedings be treated as pending in terms of Regulation 20(3)(i) & (ii) of the Service Regulation; whether further action taken by the Appellant in issuing chargesheet to conduct an inquiry and pass consequential order of dismissal from service would withstand the scrutiny of law; in the facts and looking to the legal position, whether the judgments of the High Court warrant interference. Headnotes† UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulation 29 – UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20(3)(ii) – Respondent-Branch Manager sent a notice of voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010 giving three months’ notice as required, effective till 04.01.2011 – In the meantime, a show-cause notice dtd.11.11.2010 was issued to the Respondent seeking explanation regarding some suspicious transactions however, initiation of disciplinary proceedings was not indicated therein – Vide letter dtd.14.05.2011, Respondent stopped working with the bank w.e.f. 16.05.2011 – On 29.06.2011, Respondent was informed that his request for voluntary retirement was not accepted – Respondent was subsequent charge-sheeted – Non-acceptance of voluntary * Author 38 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports retirement and consequent initiation of inquiry and dismissal, challenged by the Respondent – Writ petitions allowed by Single Judge directing grant of terminal benefits to the Respondent, order confirmed in writ appeal by the High Court: Held: Impugned order upheld – Regulation 29 of Pension Regulation governs the voluntary retirement and its acceptance until refused by the appointing authority within notice period, otherwise it would become effective on lapse of the time specified in the notice – A positive act of passing an order of refusal is required to be undertaken by the appointing authority – Thus, the request of voluntary retirement if not refused within the period specified in the notice or withheld, the deemed approval of voluntary retirement would be effective on expiry of notice period – Officer submitted his notice of voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010, giving three months’ notice as required, which would be effective till 04.01.2011 – Show cause notice issued in the meantime by the Appellant on 11.11.2010 did not indicate the intention to institute disciplinary proceedings in terms of Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the Service Regulation – Nonetheless, the existence of such a show cause notice itself is not sufficient without refusal by competent authority to stop the automatic operation of the notice of voluntary retirement – In absence, the notice of voluntary retirement would take its course – In the present case, no such order of refusal or order of withholding was passed by the competent authority within the stipulated period – The notice of voluntary retirement, therefore, became effective automatically by efflux of time upon the expiry of the three-month period on 04.01.2011 – The non- approval communicated on 29.06.2011, after expiry of the notice period and cessation of work vide notice dtd.14.05.2011 with effect from 16.05.2011, is of no avail to the bank – When an employee decides to severe master servant relationship and serves a notice indicating such intention specifying the period, by operation of law it will become effective in absence of any order of refusal – The subsequent act of issuing chargesheet and consequential order of dismissal is also not justified in law – No infirmity in the view taken by the High Court. [Paras 26, 28, 30, 33, 43, 45] Interpretation of Statutes – Harmonious construction – UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulations, 1995 – Regulation 29(1) and (2) – UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979 – Regulation 20(3)(i)-(iii): [2026] 5 S.C.R. 39 UCO Bank & Ors. v. SK Shrivasta
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.