Voluntary Retirement Deemed Accepted on Notice Expiry | SC

Case Details: UCO Bank vs. SK Shrivastava - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 282 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
• Brijesh Kumar Tamber, AOR for the Appellant.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent-employee was serving as a Branch Manager when suspicious transactions in two accounts came to the bank’s notice. On 04.10.2010, he submitted a three-month notice for voluntary retirement to the appointing authority under the Pension Regulations.

Subsequently, on 11.11.2010, the Zonal Office issued a show-cause notice regarding the alleged transactions. Later, on 20.12.2010, the Zonal Office informed him that his request for voluntary retirement could not be considered. Upon expiry of the notice period, he ceased working with effect from 16.05.2011. Thereafter, on 29.06.2011, the branch informed him that his request for voluntary retirement had not been accepted.

Nearly eight months after he had severed his employment, the bank issued a charge sheet on 05.03.2012 alleging suspicious transactions, followed by an order of dismissal from service.

The respondent filed writ petitions seeking terminal benefits on the basis of voluntary retirement and also challenged the charge-sheet and dismissal order. The High Court held that the respondent stood retired upon completion of the three-month notice period, or in any case from 16.05.2011, and accordingly directed the grant of terminal benefits.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court observed that since the notice of voluntary retirement was not refused by the competent authority within the stipulated period, it became effective automatically by efflux of time upon expiry of the three-month period on 04.01.2011. It was further held that the show-cause notice issued by the bank did not indicate any intention to initiate disciplinary proceedings and, therefore, could not be construed as such.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the subsequent issuance of the charge-sheet and the consequential order of dismissal were not justified in law. The respondent was thus held entitled to all consequential post-retiral benefits.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Writ Appeal No. 824 of 2018, dated 07.01.2019 (para 43) affirmed
• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor 2007 taxmann.com 2206 (SC)/(2007) 6 SCC 694
• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257 (para 41)
• Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724
• State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369
• UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani (2024) 13 SCC 109 (para 42) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor 2007 taxmann.com 2206 (SC) (para 9)
• UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2008) 5 SCC 257 (para 9)
• Canara Bank v. D.R.P. Sundharam (2016) 12 SCC 724 (para 9)
• State of Haryana v. S.K. Singhal (1999) 4 SCC 293 (para 14)
• Tek Chand v. Dile Ram (2001) 3 SCC 290 (para 14)
• Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam (1977) 4 SCC 441 (para 19)
• B.J. Shelat v. State of Gujarat (1978) 2 SCC 202 (para 21)
• Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir 1995 Supp (1) SCC 76 (para 24)
• State Bank of India v. Navin Kumar Sinha 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3369 (para 42)
• UCO Bank v. M.B. Motwani (2024) 13 SCC 109 (para 42).