UCO BANK Vs. S.K. SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020 is arising out of the judgment dtd. 7/1/2019 in Writ Appeal No. 824 of 2018 by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur (hereinafter 'High Court') preferred against the judgment dtd. 28/9/2018 in WP (S) No. 1620 of 2012, wherein the direction for grant of terminal benefits to Respondent No. 1 was issued. Learned Single Judge was of the view that after completion of the notice period of three months as specified in the notice for voluntary retirement or from the date of stopping to attend the service, the Respondent be treated retired voluntarily. Since he stood retired prior to institution of the disciplinary proceedings, therefore, he is entitled to all consequential benefits as per Rules governing the field. The Division Bench reaffirmed the finding of the learned Single Judge inter alia observing that since option of refusal of notice for voluntary retirement was not exercised by the Appellant-Bank before the expiry of notice period i.e. 4/1/2011 or even prior to 16/5/2011 i.e. the date since when the employee decided to severe the master servant relationship, therefore, communication made subsequently to refuse the request of voluntary retirement cannot be given retrospective effect to undo an act which was deemed to have been done.

(2.) In Civil Appeal No. 376 of 2020, the judgment dtd. 12/7/2019 in Writ Appeal No. 321 of 2019 is under challenge, whereby, the judgment dtd. 24/4/2019 passed in WP (S) No. 5109 of 2012 was assailed. Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition opined that the employee stood retired with effect from the date of severance of master servant relationship i.e. 16/5/2011, therefore, the chargesheet issued on 5/3/2012 after retirement is liable to be quashed. In view of the judgment dtd. 28/9/2018 delivered in WP (S) No. 1620 of 2012 which was affirmed by the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge quashed the chargesheet and the consequential order of dismissal along with costs of Rs.25,000.00.

(3.) In the present two appeals filed by the Appellant-bank, the Respondent herein was the petitioner before High Court. The former writ petition relates to grant of terminal benefits to him and the latter relates to challenge to chargesheet and his dismissal from service. Consequent upon the decision in the previous writ petition, the latter writ petition was allowed. Since both the appeals have been filed in relation to the same employee, therefore, both the Civil Appeals are heard analogously and being decided by this common judgment.