Petitioner-in-person. vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Judgment

1. This LPA1 is directed against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 09.05.2013 in terms of which the writ petition preferred by the appellant came to be dismissed. 2. We take note of the reliefs which were principally claimed in

the writ petition that go as follows: - a) b) the order dated Issue writ, directions/orders quashing 18.08.2000 of the removal of the petitioner by the respondent; Issue a writ or directions quashing the enquiry report dated 24.04.2000 submitted by the Enquiry Officer; the respondent to give voluntarily retirement of the petitioner from 13.07.1998 and also direct to pre-matuirily retirement from the same; the permission for c) Direct d) Pass such other order/orders as this Hon‟ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 1 Letters Patent Appeal Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2025 11:01:25 LPA 476/2013 Page 1 of 11

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that the appellant joined the respondent/bank in November, 1973 as Small Scale Industries Officer and was promoted as Chief Manager in 1984 and the appellant was lastly posted as Chief Public Relations & Publicity in the year 1996 in the head office and worked there till January, 1998. During the relevant time, the appellant was transferred to report to the Inspection Division at the Head Office for onward posting to Indore.

4. Evidently, the appellant submitted a notice of voluntary retirement on 15.04.1998 in terms of Regulation 29 (1) & (2) of the Punjab National Bank2 (Pension) Regulations. In response thereof, the Assistant General Manager of the respondent bank vide letter dated

04.05.1998 informed the appellant that his request for voluntary retirement shall be considered after hearing from CBI3 or after finalization of the said case, which relates to a settlement arrived at the Head Office for a loan relating to Bhuj Branch (Gujrat), where appellant was working as Regional Manager Bombay. The appellant contends that the amount released on account of settlement was from one of the Bombay branches which though under the Administrative Control of the appellant, had neither been recommended nor sanctioned/released by him. Anyhow, it is pertinent to mention at this stage that the respondent in its counter affidavit acknowledges that the appellant was exonerated by CBI at the investigation stage itself. 5. It appears that the appellant did not go to the office under the 2 PNB 3 Central Bureau of Investigation Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2025 11:01:25 LPA 476/2013 Page 2 of 11 belief that since there was no positive communication by way of any specific refusal, he was deemed to have retired voluntarily, and therefore, there was no question of reporting to the office. However, the respondent bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for alleged absence from duty, which eventually resulted in the appellant‟s removal from service on 18.08.2000. This decision was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 18.11.2000. 6. Aggrieved thereof, the appellant challenged the dismissal through a writ petition being WP(C) 3154/2001, which came to be dismissed by the learned Single Bench of this Court vide order dated

09.05.2013, distinguishing the factual narrative of the instant matter from the precedent set in J.P. Sharma v. Director General Border Roads4 on the grounds of differing statutory provisions i.e., Regulation 29 of the PNB (Pension) Regulations and Rule 48A of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. The relevant paragraphs of the decision of the Single Judge are reproduced herein: “10. The judgment in the case of J.P. Sharma (supra) would have definitely helped the petitioner but in my opinion the judgment does not help the petitioner because the Single Judge of this Court in that case was concerned with the typical language of Rule 48A of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and in the first para of which there is no requirement of a specific acceptance to an application for voluntary retirement as is found in the subject Regulation 29(2). That relevant regulation which was in issue in the case of J.P. Sharma (supra) reads as under:- “Rule 48-A-Retirement on completion of 20 years qualifying service- (1) at any time, after a Government servant has completed twenty years qualifying service, he may, be giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service. 4 47 (1972) DLT 575 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2025 11:01:25 LPA 476/2013 Page 3 of 11 (2) Proviso- 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." 11. The aforesaid Rule 48-A in its first part does not use the expression of prior acceptance required qua the application for voluntary retirement and which is so specifically required in terms of Regulation 29(2) which is found in the present case. Learned Single Judge in the case of J.P. Sharma (supra) interpreted the Rule 48-A in terms of the proviso requiring the specific expression of „refusal‟ because the first sub-Rule of Rule 48-A did not require specific acceptance and there was a deemed retirement on completion of three months‟ notice period. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner cannot get any benefit of the judgment in the case of J.P. Sharma (supra). 16. In my opinion, though now the doctrine of proportionality is well-established in-service jurisprudence in this country, however, I am not inclined to interfere on this ground because petitioner has effectively not joined the services of the respondent-bank way back from 3.1.1998. I would have been inclined to take a liberal view if the petitioner had joined his duties on receiving the communication dated 4.5.1998 or even when the show cause notice dated 18.9.1998 issued by the respondent-bank to the petitioner, however the petitioner steadfastly remained obdurate and did not join the services of the enquiry proceedings. No employee can presume that automatic leave is sanctioned to him or he is deemed to have automatically taken voluntary retirement because he feels so. If the petitioner was over confident that his application for voluntary retirement will be accepted he has to also take the adverse consequence if the interpretation of Regulation 29(2) would have not gone in his favour and which has so happened in the present case. Also, the doctrine of proportionality will come into play if the punishment shocks the judicial conscience as per the facts of the present case. Considering that the petitioner abandoned his services on the basis of his own interpretation given to Regulation 29(2), I do not feel that the action against the petitioner and the punishment inflicted upon him can in any manner be said to. shock the judicial conscience for this Court to interfere with the punishment by application of doctrine of proportionality. punishment by application of doctrine of proportionality. 17. Finally, I must state that at the fag end of arguments petitioner very desperately sought to challenge the communication dated respondent-bank even during Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMOD KUMAR VATS Signing Date:09.01.2025 11:01:25 LPA 476/2013 Page 4 of 11

4.5.1998 on the ground that the same was not issued by the competent authority viz the appointing authority, however, I find that there is absolutely no cause of action or grounds pleaded for this factual argument, and since what would be the factual position is not known because respondent has had no opportunity on facts to rebut, the contention now raised for the first time in final arguments, I disallow the petitioner to raise this ground.”

7. Hence, this appeal is preferred by the appellant. LEGAL SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PARTIES 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has confined his submissions only to the issue regarding notice of voluntary retirement under Regulation 29(2) of the PNB (Pension) Regulations, its effect on the expiry of 90 days of the notice period and the benefits which the appellant is entitled after the completion of the mandatory period, the appellant is deemed to have been treated effectively. It is urged that the communication dated 04.05.1998 is not a refusal as per provisions of Regulation 29 of PNB Employees Pension Regulation 1995, and therefore, the same is deemed to have been accepted after the completion of 90 days notice period. Reliance is also placed by the petitioner on the cases of State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal5, B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat6 and Union of India v. Syed Muzaffar Mir7. 9. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the present case would not be covered upon joint reading of Regulation 20(3)(i) with Regulation 29(2) of the PNB (Pension) Regulations, since there is required a specific prior approval in writing