UNITED BANK OF INDIA Vs. ASHOKE KUMAR DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated August 26, 1999 passed by a single Judge of this Court allowing the two writ applications filed by the respondent being marked W.P. No. 11167(W) of 1997 and W.P. No. 23847(W) of 1997.

(2.) The respondent, while posted as Manager of Birpara Branch under the appellant No. 1, exercised option for voluntary retirement giving 90 days' notice in writing with effect from May 14, 1996 on completion of 31 and half years of service under Service Regulations. His application to the General Manager (Personnel) expressed that he would be retiring on completion of 90 days which period was due to expire on August 12, 1996. On September 8, 1996 the Chief Officer (Pension) asked the petitioner to make the representation for voluntary retirement through the Regional Manager at Siliguri. On June 14, 1996 the respondent forwarded the said application dated May 14, 1996 through the Regional Manager. On getting no response from the Competent Authority the petitioner handed over charge on August 16, 1996 with information to the Regional Manager. On August 22, 1996 the respondent received the order of the Authority dated August 13, 1996 along with a forwarding letter dated August 17, 1996 refusing to accept the notice of voluntary retirement. By a letter dated August 26, 1996 to Chief Officer of the UBI the respondent intimated that the notice of retirement having taken effect he should be allowed to commute his pension. The appellants refused to pay pension to the respondent and the first writ petition was filed with a prayer for cancelling the letter of refusal issued by the appellants as also for giving directions to the appellants to release Provident Fund and Gratuity. Subsequently, on September 16, 1997 the Bank Authorities served a chargesheet on the respondent for his unauthorised absence since August 16, 1996 and the respondent filed the second writ petition for quashing the disciplinary proceedings.

(3.) The appellant Bank Authorities in the affidavit in-opposition contended that on February 24, 1996 the letter of the Regional Manager of Bank was sent to the writ petitioner asking him to explain the irregularities in the Tea Nursery A/c. at Maskalai Bari Branch which was indicative of the fact that a disciplinary proceeding was under contemplation against the writ petitioner, that under statutory regulation the notice of voluntary retirement requires the acceptance of the Authorities, that before the expiry of the period of notice, a telegram was sent on August 12, 1996 refusing to accept the voluntary retirement to the Regional Manager who received it on August 13, 1996 and the Deputy General Manager communicated to the petitioner on August 13, 1996 over telephone about the decision of the Authorities, that the notice of retirement direct to the Competent Authority being irregular was required to be routed through the Regional Manager and the writ petitioner complied with the requirement later on June 14, 1996 and as such the decision of refusal was communicated within time and lastly, the notice of 90 days was invalid for being less than three calender months.