P.S. Moorthy Vs. Uco Bank Rep. by G.M., Personal Administration Dept. and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
service - voluntary retirement - regulation 29 of bank's pension regulations - petitioner sought voluntarily retirement on 17.11.1995 - competent authority of respondent (bank) denied his request - voluntary retirement not an automatic right - it has to be approved by competent authority - authority free to refuse grant of voluntary retirement - authorities sent their refusal on 3.02.1996 which was not communicated to petitioner - contended refusal of authorities deemed to be effectively communicated on 16.02.1996 - held, communication completed on 3.02.1996 and decision of respondent validated. - - 20.(1)(a) subject to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 16 where the bank is satisfied that the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bona fide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the bank's service would be prejudicial to interest of the bank, and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedure, the bank may terminate his services on giving him three months' notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government from time to time. (b) on receipt of a request under clause (a) the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2) consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months. the provisions of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 20 strengthens this inference, as this sub-regulation deals with the 'termination of an employee from service' for unsatisfactory performance in office and the like reasons. as analyzed supra, as it is regulation 19 which deals with premature retirement of an employee and not regulation 20, i hold that acceptance by the appointing authority is a sine qua non to enable an employee to prematurely retire from service, unless the appointing authority has failed to communicate its disapproval for permission to allow such premature retirement, before expiry of the period of notice given by the employee indicating the date with effect from which he would proceed on such premature retirement (voluntary retirement). 15. applying the above analysis to the fact, it is seen that the petitioner has by his letter dated november 17, 1995 signified to the respondent-bank his intention to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement. 17. in the above factual scenario, it is apparent that the respondent-bank has communicated its refusal to accord permission for the voluntary retirement of the petitioner well prior to february 16, 1996. 18. mr.ordergoda raghuram, j.1. the petitioner, in substance, is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-bank in declining the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement as contained in the order dated february 3, 1996 communicated to himby the correspondence dated april 11, 1996 purportedly received by him on april 18, 1996.2. the petitioner joined the respondent bank in the year 1969 as field officer and later earned several higher positions after having worked at different places. he was given the scale-iv (a) with effect from may, 1993 and posted as chief officer, zonal office, bangalore, where he worked from december 27, 1993 to december 26, 1994 and thereafter he was transferred to guwahati as divisional manager in the zonal office. while serving at guwahati, the petitioner applied for leave from november 6, 1995 and kept extending the leave from time to time. as on his assessment he could not serve at guwahati any further, on account of domestic preoccupations, he submitted a letter dated november 17, 1995 to the respondent-bank seeking voluntary retirement from bank service. it could appear that the fax message dated february 1, 1996 was addressed to the zonal manager, guwahati, stating that the competent authority had declined to accept the request pf the petitioner for voluntary retirement; and that the petitioner be advised about this. thereafter, by the order dated february 3, 1996, north eastern zonal office communicated to the petitioner the advice from the head office that the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been declined by the competent authority.3. according to the respondents, this communication from the zonal office, guwahati dated february 3, 1996 was sent to the given residential address at hyderabad. the letter was however returned to the zonal office with a postal endorsement that during february 8, 1996 to february 15, 1996, the door of the house of the petitioner was locked; another postal endorsement dated february 16, 1996, that there was no house bearing plot no. 16, sainagar, road no. 13, banjara hills, hyderabad; and another postal endorsement dated march 11, 1996 that the party was not available for delivery at the above said address. eventually, the communication was delivered to the petitioner on april 18, 1996.4. by his letter dated september 23, 1996 addressed to the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner sensitised the 1st respondent to his application dated november 17, 1995 seeking voluntary retirement and that his voluntary retirement comes into force automatically on the lapse of three months' notice period, which would be february 16, 1996; and as no order of the competent authority has been communicated to him, even on the date of the letter dated september 23, 1996, he should be deemed to have retired from service voluntarily from february 17, 1996. the letter dated september 23, 1996 of the petitioner concludes by calling upon the respondent-bank to release his terminal benefits, on the basis of his voluntary retirement. there being no response nor any action by the respondents to his request for release of terminal benefits, consequent on his 'deemed retirement on voluntary basis', the petitioner instituted the writ petition challenging the order of the competent authority of the bank declining his request for availing voluntary retirement.5. the legal architecture governing the entitlement of the petitioner to proceed on voluntary retirement is encompassed in two instruments viz., (i) uco bank (officers') service regulations, 1979 (revised upto june 30, 1997) (for short 'the 1979 regulations') and (ii) uco bank (employees') pension regulations, 1995 (for short 'the 1995 regulations').6. mr. a. sitarama rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on an interactive analysis of the provisions of the 1979 and 1995 regulations, the inference is irresistible that absence of an order of suspension or issuance of a notice to an officer of the uco bank calling upon him to show cause why the disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him, the employee shall be entitled to the benefits of voluntary retirement, on an application duly made by such an employee. this contention is urged on the premise that regulation 29 of the 1995 regulations is to be read in conjunction with regulation 20(3) of the 1979 regulations.7. mr. v. ajay kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-bank would urge to the contra that under the present regulation 29 of 1995 regulations, the right of the uco bank employee to proceed on voluntary retirement is not an automatic one or at his will, but such a request would have to be accepted by the competent authority; and that the competent authority would be justified in declining grant of permission to an employee to proceed on voluntary retirement for rational reasons, which reasons are urged to exist in the case on hand. as the same regulations are the subject matter of adversarial and different interpretations, it is necessary to extract the relevant regulations before proceeding on an analysis of their terms. regulations 19 and 20 of the 1979 regulations are the only ones urged to be relevant to the facts of the case. they read as under:'age of retirement:19. (1) the age of retirement of an officer employee shall be as determined by the board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government from time to time- 'provided that the bank may, at its discretion, on review by the special committee/special committees as provided hereinafter in sub-regulation (2) retire, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, an officer employee on or at any time after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service as an officer employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier'. provided further that before retiring an officer employee, at least three months' notice in writing or an amount equivalent to three months' substantive salary/pay and allowances, shall be given to such officer employee: provided further that an officer aggrieved by the order of the competent authority, as provided in sub-regulation (2) may, within one month of the passing of the order, give in writing a representation to the board of directors against the decision of the competent authority, and on receipt of such representation from the concerned officer, the board of directors shall consider his representation and take a decision within a period of three months. where the board of directors decides that the order passed by the competentauthority is not justified, the concerned officer shall be reinstated as though the competent authority has not passed the order: provided also that nothing in this regulation shall be deemed to preclude an officer employee from retiring earlier pursuant to the option exercised by him in accordance with rules in the bank. explanation:an officer employee will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes his age of retirement.(2) the bank shall constitute a special committee(s) consisting of not less than three members to review whether an officer employee should be retired in accordance with the first proviso to this regulation. such committee(s) shall, from time to time, review the case of each officer employee and no order of retirement shall be made unless the special committee(s) recommend(s) in writing to the competent authority the retirement of the officer employee.(the guidelines issued by the government in terms of proviso to regulation 19(1) and (2) are given in annexure-7).termination of service:20.(1)(a) subject to sub-regulation (3) of regulation 16 where the bank is satisfied that the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bona fide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the bank's service would be prejudicial to interest of the bank, and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedure, the bank may terminate his services on giving him three months' notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in accordance with the guidelines issued by the government from time to time.(b) order of termination under this sub-regulation shall not be made unless such officer has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation to the bank against the proposed order.(c) the decision to terminate the services of an officer employee under sub-regulation (a) above will be taken only by the chairman and managing director.(d) the officer employee shall be entitled to appeal against any order passed under sub-regulation (a) above by preferring an appeal within 15 days to the board of directors of the bank. if the appeal is allowed, the order under sub-regulation (a) shall stand cancelled.(e) where an officer employee whose services have been terminated and who has been paid an amount of three months' emoluments in lieu of notice and on appeal his termination is cancelled, the amount paid to him in lieu of notice shall be adjusted against the salary that he would have earned, had his services not been terminated and he shall continue in the bank's employment on same terms and conditions as if the order of termination had not been passed at all.(f) an officer employee whose services are terminated under sub-regulation (a) above shall be paid gratuity, provident fund including employer's contribution and all other dues that may be admissible to him as per rules notwithstanding the years of service rendered.(g) nothing contained herein above will affect the bank's right to retire an officer employee under regulation 19(1).2. an officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. the period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the competent authority as prescribed in these regulations:provided further that the competent authority may reduce the period of 3 months or remit the requirement of notice.3. (i) an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave/discontinue or resign from his service in the bank without the prior approval in writing of competent authority and any notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the competent authority.(ii) disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against any employee for the purpose of this regulation if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him and will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the competent authority.(iii) the officer against whom disciplinary proceedings -have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. the concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. he will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to gpf.'8. regulation 29 of the 1995 regulations reads as under:'29. pension on voluntary retirement. (1) on or after november 1, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service:provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to india he has resumed charge of the post in india and has served for a period of not less than one year:provided further that this sub-regulation shall, not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement:provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (l) of regulation 2.(2) the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority: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.(3)(a) an employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor;(b) on receipt of a request under clause (a) the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2) consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months.(4) an employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.(5) ....(6) ....'9. it requires to be noticed that the 1995 regulations were notified on september 29, 1995 prior to the application dated november 17, 1995 of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement. it is the synoptic case of the respective parties that the 1995 regulations apply to the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement. the parties are also agreed that as on the date of petitioner's application for voluntary retirement i.e., november 17, 1995, the age of superannuation of officers of the respondent-bank was 58 years. it is also the agreed position that the normal date of superannuation of the petitioner is march 31, 2001.analysis of the legal environment:10. in the considered view of this court, there is no ambiguity in the provisions of regulations 19 and 20 of the 1979 regulations or regulation 29 of the 1995 regulations necessitating the aid of dynamic or purposive interpretation to elucidate the true meaning and intent of these regulations. in the circumstances, the preferred interpretative rule of grammatical construction is apposite and warranted to discern the true meaning and intent of these regulations and to comprehend their effect on the facts of this case.11. on a holistic analysis of the 1979 regulations, in particular regulations 19 and 20 thereof, it is apparent that regulation 19 deals with the retirement of an officer employee prior to the normal date of superannuation. sub-regulation (1) of regulation 19 of the these regulations, including the first proviso deals with the power and jurisdiction of the employer-bank to prematurely retire from service, an officer employee after a review of his record by the special committee or committees constituted in accordance with the sub-regulation (2). this regime of premature retirement is applicable to an officer employee having the specified spectrum of age or service as enumerated in the regulation. the fourth proviso is in the nature of an ex abundanti cautela provision couched in the form of non-obstante provision, clarifying that nothing in regulation 19 may be construed as abridging the liberty of an officer employee to retire earlier than his scheduled age of superannuation, so, however, that the exercise of such option by the officer employee, shall be in accordance with the rules in the bank. on the other hand, regulation 20 of the 1979 regulations deals with 'termination of service'. sub-regulation (1) of this regulation deals with the power of the bank to bring about premature termination of service of an employee for the reasons and in accordance with the procedure set out. sub-regulation (2) incorporates an obligation on an officer employee not to leave, discontinue or resign from the service of the bank without first giving the prescribed notice. sub-regulation (3) sets out the disability of an officer employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, to leave, discontinue or resign from the service of the bank without prior approval of the competent authority; and further enacts that any notice of resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings, shall not have effect, unless accepted by the competent authority (emphasis). clause (ii) of sub-regulation (3) sets out the meaning of the expression 'disciplinary proceedings'.12. on a true and fair construction, it is apparent that regulation 20 of the 1979 regulations deals with the areas of discontinuance, resignation or leaving the service of the bank. construing the specific regime in regulation 19, dealing with premature retirement from service of an officer of the bank in juxtaposition, the inference is irresistible that regulation 20 deals with situations of exit from service of the bank, of an officer employee otherwise than by retirement. the provisions of sub-regulation (1) of regulation 20 strengthens this inference, as this sub-regulation deals with the 'termination of an employee from service' for unsatisfactory performance in office and the like reasons. even, in respect of leaving, discontinuation or resignation from service, clause (i) of regulation 20(3) does not enable even an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are not pending (as defined in clause (ii) of this regulation) to leave, discontinue or resign from the service of the bank, having regard to the specific clause, which ordains that '....any notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings, shall not take effect, unless it is accepted by the competent authority.' (emphasis)13. regulation 29 of the 1995 regulations deals with the area of pension on voluntary retirement. sub-regulation (2) of regulation 29 positively ordains that the notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. i am unable to discern any antinomy or dichotomy between the apparent and real meaning of this clause. accordingly, i hold that acceptance by the appointing authority is a sine qua non for effectuation of voluntary retirement pursuant to a notice given by an employee under sub-regulation (1) of regulation 29, except in situations covered by the proviso to sub-regulation (2) viz., situations where the appointing authority does not refuse grant of permission for retirement, before the expiry of the period specified in the notice given by the employee under sub-regulation (1). in the latter case, qua the provisions in the proviso to sub-regulation (2) of regulation 29, retirement shall become effective on the date of expiry of the period with effect from which the employee has notified his intention to proceed on voluntary retirement, notwithstanding that there is no acceptance by the appointing authority.14. on such interactive analysis of the relevant provisions of the 1979 and 1995 regulations this court is of the considered view that the requirement of giving notice, the requirement of acceptance by the appointing authority and the enumeration of circumstances where even without such acceptance by the appointing authority, the retirement would become effective, set out in regulation 29 of the 1995 regulations, are 'rules in the hank' within the. meaning of the said phrase, occurring in the fourth proviso to sub-regulation (1) of regulation 19 of the 1979 regulations. as analyzed supra, as it is regulation 19 which deals with premature retirement of an employee and not regulation 20, i hold that acceptance by the appointing authority is a sine qua non to enable an employee to prematurely retire from service, unless the appointing authority has failed to communicate its disapproval for permission to allow such premature retirement, before expiry of the period of notice given by the employee indicating the date with effect from which he would proceed on such premature retirement (voluntary retirement).15. applying the above analysis to the fact, it is seen that the petitioner has by his letter dated november 17, 1995 signified to the respondent-bank his intention to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement. in accordance with the mandate of regulation 29(1) of the 1995 regulations, the date with effect from which the petitioner's intent to voluntarily retire from service would effectuate, is february 16, 1996. if the appointing authority of the respondent-bank had not communicated its refusal to grant permission for retirement of the petitioner before february 16, 1996, then in accordance with the present proviso to regulation 29(2), the retirement of the petitioner would become effective from february 16, 1996. prior to february 16, 1996, however, the petitioner is not at liberty to proceed on voluntary retirement without acceptance of such retirement by the appointing authority.16. what then is refusal to grant permission for retirement, it is a settled principle in law that unless otherwise ordained, a decision is effective only on its communication and a communication is effective, if the decision is addressed to the addressee and put in the course of transmission to him, as to be beyond the reach of the addresser. the earliest decision of the competent authority's refusal to accord permission to the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was by way of a fax message to the regional office, guwahati on february 1, 1996. by the said date, the respondent-bank was aware that the petitioner was on leave, (whether sanctioned or not) and was not stationed at guwahati, but was apparently stationed at hyderabad at his residential town. in the circumstances, the fax message addressed to the zonal officer, guwhathi cannot be considered to be communication to the petitioner within the meaning of regulation 29(2) of the 1995 regulations. however, the letter dated february 3, 1996 reiterating the decision of refusal of the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was addressed to the petitioner, at his given address in hyderabad. there are postal endorsements to the effect that between february 8, 1996 and february 15, 1996 the house of the petitioner at the residential address at hyderabad (given by the petitioner) was locked, a postal endorsement on february 16, 1996 to the effect that there is no such address and on marph 11, 1996 that the party is not available for delivery at the given address. the petitioner had not intiniated to the employer that he would not be available in his hyderabad address during the 2nd and 3rd week of february, 1996. the posting of the letter dated february 3, 1996 so as to be out of reach of the employer constitutes effective communication to the petitioner. the theoretical substratum underlying the principle that putting a decision in course of transmission so as to be beyond the reach of the addresser, constitutes effective communication, appears to be that the decision should no longer be amenable to the locus penitentiae of the decision maker. in this sense once the bank's letter of refusal is put in the course of postal transmission, addressed to the given address of the petitioner, it would no longer be possible for the respondent bank to retrieve or review its decision. that is the point, at which, the communication is said to have been made to the petitioner.17. in the above factual scenario, it is apparent that the respondent-bank has communicated its refusal to accord permission for the voluntary retirement of the petitioner well prior to february 16, 1996.18. mr. a. sitarama rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that no reasons are vouchsafed in the decision of the competent authority declining permission for the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. the respondent-bank does not demur from the position that it is an instrumentality of the state. therefore, consistent with public and constitutional law injunctions, all administrative actions of the respondent-bank are required to be characterized by rationality and fairness. occasionally recording of reasons in the order itself might be, one of the aspects of such fairness and rationality, but not invariably.19. it would appear that commencing from december, 1996, certain charges were framed against the petitioner alleging misconduct on his part. the petitioner has also been inflicted with penalties in respect of those charges and those disciplinary proceedings are the subject matter of other writ petitions filed by the petitioner. it is not necessary to go into the validity of those disciplinary proceedings in this writ petition.20. cbi investigation and prosecution too were pending as on the date the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement. regulation 20(3)(i) disables effectuation of a notice for availing discontinuation from service, given by an officer, unless accepted by the competent authority, even before disciplinary proceedings.21. in the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons above, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be considered as having retired from service of the respondent-bank on february 16, 1996 and for reasons alike this court discerns no infirmity in the decision of the respondent-bank dated february 3, 1996, declining permission for voluntary retirement of the petitioner.22. in these circumstances, i am not inclined to invalidate the decision of the respondent-bank contained in its letter dated february 3, 1996 declining permission for voluntary retirement of the petitioner on the singular ground that the reasons for decision have not been recorded in the letter itself. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. there shall be no order as to costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

Goda Raghuram, J.

1. The petitioner, in substance, is aggrieved by the action of the respondent-bank in declining the acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement as contained in the order dated February 3, 1996 communicated to himby the correspondence dated April 11, 1996 purportedly received by him on April 18, 1996.

2. The petitioner joined the respondent bank in the year 1969 as Field Officer and later earned several higher positions after having worked at different places. He was given the Scale-IV (A) with effect from May, 1993 and posted as Chief Officer, Zonal Office, Bangalore, where he worked from December 27, 1993 to December 26, 1994 and thereafter he was transferred to Guwahati as Divisional Manager in the Zonal Office. While serving at Guwahati, the petitioner applied for leave from November 6, 1995 and kept extending the leave from time to time. As on his assessment he could not serve at Guwahati any further, on account of domestic preoccupations, he submitted a letter dated November 17, 1995 to the respondent-bank seeking voluntary retirement from bank service. It could appear that the Fax Message dated February 1, 1996 was addressed to the Zonal Manager, Guwahati, stating that the competent authority had declined to accept the request pf the petitioner for voluntary retirement; and that the petitioner be advised about this. Thereafter, by the order dated February 3, 1996, North Eastern Zonal Office communicated to the petitioner the advice from the Head office that the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been declined by the competent authority.

3. According to the respondents, this communication from the Zonal Office, Guwahati dated February 3, 1996 was sent to the given residential address at Hyderabad. The letter was however returned to the Zonal Office with a postal endorsement that during February 8, 1996 to February 15, 1996, the door of the House of the petitioner was locked; another postal endorsement dated February 16, 1996, that there was no house bearing Plot No. 16, Sainagar, Road No. 13, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad; and another postal endorsement dated March 11, 1996 that the party was not available for delivery at the above said address. Eventually, the communication was delivered to the petitioner on April 18, 1996.

4. By his letter dated September 23, 1996 addressed to the 1st respondent herein, the petitioner sensitised the 1st respondent to his application dated November 17, 1995 seeking voluntary retirement and that his voluntary retirement comes into force automatically on the lapse of three months' notice period, which would be February 16, 1996; and as no order of the competent authority has been communicated to him, even on the date of the letter dated September 23, 1996, he should be deemed to have retired from service voluntarily from February 17, 1996. The letter dated September 23, 1996 of the petitioner concludes by calling upon the respondent-bank to release his terminal benefits, on the basis of his voluntary retirement. There being no response nor any action by the respondents to his request for release of terminal benefits, consequent on his 'deemed retirement on voluntary basis', the petitioner instituted the writ petition challenging the order of the competent authority of the bank declining his request for availing voluntary retirement.

5. The legal architecture governing the entitlement of the petitioner to proceed on voluntary retirement is encompassed in two instruments viz., (i) UCO Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (Revised upto June 30, 1997) (for short 'the 1979 Regulations') and (ii) UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995 (for short 'the 1995 Regulations').

6. Mr. A. Sitarama Rao, Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that on an interactive analysis of the provisions of the 1979 and 1995 Regulations, the inference is irresistible that absence of an order of suspension or issuance of a notice to an officer of the UCO Bank calling upon him to show cause why the disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him, the employee shall be entitled to the benefits of voluntary retirement, on an application duly made by such an employee. This contention is urged on the premise that Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations is to be read in conjunction with Regulation 20(3) of the 1979 Regulations.

7. Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-bank would urge to the contra that under the present Regulation 29 of 1995 Regulations, the right of the UCO Bank employee to proceed on voluntary retirement is not an automatic one or at his will, but such a request would have to be accepted by the competent authority; and that the competent authority would be justified in declining grant of permission to an employee to proceed on voluntary retirement for rational reasons, which reasons are urged to exist in the case on hand. As the same Regulations are the subject matter of adversarial and different interpretations, it is necessary to extract the relevant Regulations before proceeding on an analysis of their terms. Regulations 19 and 20 of the 1979 Regulations are the only ones urged to be relevant to the facts of the case. They read as under:

'Age of Retirement:

19. (1) The age of retirement of an officer employee shall be as determined by the Board in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time-

'Provided that the Bank may, at its discretion, on review by the Special Committee/Special Committees as provided hereinafter in Sub-regulation (2) retire, if it is of the opinion that it is in the public interest, an officer employee on or at any time after the completion of 55 years of age or on or at any time after the completion of 30 years of total service as an officer employee or otherwise, whichever is earlier'. Provided further that before retiring an officer employee, at least three months' notice in writing or an amount equivalent to three months' substantive salary/pay and allowances, shall be given to such officer employee:

Provided further that an officer aggrieved by the order of the Competent Authority, as provided in Sub-regulation (2) may, within one month of the passing of the order, give in writing a representation to the Board of Directors against the decision of the Competent Authority, and on receipt of such representation from the concerned officer, the Board of Directors shall consider his representation and take a decision within a period of three months. Where the Board of Directors decides that the order passed by the CompetentAuthority is not justified, the concerned officer shall be reinstated as though the Competent Authority has not passed the order:

Provided also that nothing in this regulation shall be deemed to preclude an officer employee from retiring earlier pursuant to the option exercised by him in accordance with rules in the Bank.

Explanation:

An officer employee will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes his age of retirement.

(2) The Bank shall constitute a Special Committee(s) consisting of not less than three members to review whether an officer employee should be retired in accordance with the first proviso to this regulation. Such Committee(s) shall, from time to time, review the case of each officer employee and no order of retirement shall be made unless the Special Committee(s) recommend(s) in writing to the Competent Authority the retirement of the Officer employee.

(The guidelines issued by the Government in terms of proviso to Regulation 19(1) and (2) are given in Annexure-7).

Termination of Service:

20.(1)(a) Subject to Sub-regulation (3) of Regulation 16 where the Bank is satisfied that the performance of an officer is unsatisfactory or inadequate or there is a bona fide suspicion about his integrity or his retention in the Bank's service would be prejudicial to interest of the Bank, and where it is not possible or expedient to proceed against him as per the disciplinary procedure, the Bank may terminate his services on giving him three months' notice or emoluments in lieu thereof in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Government from time to time.

(b) Order of termination under this sub-regulation shall not be made unless such officer has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation to the Bank against the proposed order.

(c) The decision to terminate the services of an Officer employee under Sub-regulation (a) above will be taken only by the Chairman and Managing Director.

(d) The officer employee shall be entitled to appeal against any order passed under Sub-regulation (a) above by preferring an appeal within 15 days to the Board of Directors of the Bank. If the appeal is allowed, the order under Sub-regulation (a) shall stand cancelled.

(e) Where an officer employee whose services have been terminated and who has been paid an amount of three months' emoluments in lieu of notice and on appeal his termination is cancelled, the amount paid to him in lieu of notice shall be adjusted against the salary that he would have earned, had his services not been terminated and he shall continue in the Bank's employment on same terms and conditions as if the order of termination had not been passed at all.

(f) An officer employee whose services are terminated under Sub-regulation (a) above shall be paid Gratuity, Provident Fund including employer's contribution and all other dues that may be admissible to him as per rules notwithstanding the years of service rendered.

(g) Nothing contained herein above will affect the Bank's right to retire an officer employee under Regulation 19(1).

2. An officer shall not leave or discontinue his service in the Bank without first giving a notice in writing of his intention to leave or discontinue his service or resign. The period of notice required shall be 3 months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in these regulations:

Provided further that the competent authority may reduce the period of 3 months or remit the requirement of notice.

3. (i) An officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave/discontinue or resign from his service in the bank without the prior approval in writing of competent authority and any notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority.

(ii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against any employee for the purpose of this regulation if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him and will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the Competent Authority.

(iii) The officer against whom disciplinary proceedings -have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to GPF.'

8. Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations reads as under:

'29. Pension on voluntary Retirement. (1) On or after November 1, 1993 at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service:

Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year:

Provided further that this sub-regulation shall, not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement:

Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with Clause (L) of Regulation 2.

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under Sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority:

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.

(3)(a) An employee referred to in Sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons therefor;

(b) On receipt of a request under Clause (a) the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of Sub-regulation (2) consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months.

(4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority:

Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement.

(5) ....

(6) ....'

9. It requires to be noticed that the 1995 Regulations were notified on September 29, 1995 prior to the application dated November 17, 1995 of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement. It is the synoptic case of the respective parties that the 1995 Regulations apply to the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement. The parties are also agreed that as on the date of petitioner's application for voluntary retirement i.e., November 17, 1995, the age of superannuation of Officers of the respondent-bank was 58 years. It is also the agreed position that the normal date of superannuation of the petitioner is March 31, 2001.

Analysis of the Legal environment:

10. In the considered view of this Court, there is no ambiguity in the provisions of Regulations 19 and 20 of the 1979 Regulations or Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations necessitating the aid of dynamic or purposive interpretation to elucidate the true meaning and intent of these Regulations. In the circumstances, the preferred interpretative rule of grammatical construction is apposite and warranted to discern the true meaning and intent of these Regulations and to comprehend their effect on the facts of this case.

11. On a holistic analysis of the 1979 Regulations, in particular Regulations 19 and 20 thereof, it is apparent that Regulation 19 deals with the retirement of an officer employee prior to the normal date of superannuation. Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 19 of the these Regulations, including the first proviso deals with the power and jurisdiction of the employer-bank to prematurely retire from service, an officer employee after a review of his record by the Special Committee or Committees constituted in accordance with the Sub-regulation (2). This regime of premature retirement is applicable to an officer employee having the specified spectrum of age or service as enumerated in the Regulation. The fourth proviso is in the nature of an ex Abundanti Cautela provision couched in the form of non-obstante provision, clarifying that nothing in Regulation 19 may be construed as abridging the liberty of an officer employee to retire earlier than his scheduled age of superannuation, so, however, that the exercise of such option by the officer employee, shall be in accordance with the rules in the bank. On the other hand, Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations deals with 'termination of service'. Sub-regulation (1) of this Regulation deals with the power of the bank to bring about premature termination of service of an employee for the reasons and in accordance with the procedure set out. Sub-regulation (2) incorporates an obligation on an officer employee not to leave, discontinue or resign from the service of the bank without first giving the prescribed notice. Sub-regulation (3) sets out the disability of an officer employee against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending, to leave, discontinue or resign from the service of the bank without prior approval of the competent authority; and further enacts that any notice of resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings, shall not have effect, unless accepted by the competent authority (emphasis). Clause (ii) of Sub-regulation (3) sets out the meaning of the expression 'disciplinary proceedings'.

12. On a true and fair construction, it is apparent that Regulation 20 of the 1979 Regulations deals with the areas of discontinuance, resignation or leaving the service of the bank. Construing the specific regime in Regulation 19, dealing with premature retirement from service of an officer of the bank in juxtaposition, the inference is irresistible that Regulation 20 deals with situations of exit from service of the bank, of an officer employee otherwise than by retirement. The provisions of Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 20 strengthens this inference, as this sub-regulation deals with the 'termination of an employee from service' for unsatisfactory performance in office and the like reasons. Even, in respect of leaving, discontinuation or resignation from service, Clause (i) of Regulation 20(3) does not enable even an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are not pending (as defined in Clause (ii) of this Regulation) to leave, discontinue or resign from the service of the bank, having regard to the specific clause, which ordains that '....any notice or resignation given by such an officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings, shall not take effect, unless it is accepted by the competent authority.' (emphasis)

13. Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations deals with the area of pension on voluntary retirement. Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 29 positively ordains that the notice of voluntary retirement given under Sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority. I am unable to discern any antinomy or dichotomy between the apparent and real meaning of this clause. Accordingly, I hold that acceptance by the appointing authority is a sine qua non for effectuation of voluntary retirement pursuant to a notice given by an employee under Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 29, except in situations covered by the proviso to Sub-regulation (2) viz., situations where the appointing authority does not refuse grant of permission for retirement, before the expiry of the period specified in the notice given by the employee under Sub-regulation (1). In the latter case, qua the provisions in the proviso to Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 29, retirement shall become effective on the date of expiry of the period with effect from which the employee has notified his intention to proceed on voluntary retirement, notwithstanding that there is no acceptance by the appointing authority.

14. On such interactive analysis of the relevant provisions of the 1979 and 1995 Regulations this Court is of the considered view that the requirement of giving notice, the requirement of acceptance by the appointing authority and the enumeration of circumstances where even without such acceptance by the appointing authority, the retirement would become effective, set out in Regulation 29 of the 1995 Regulations, are 'Rules in the hank' within the. meaning of the said phrase, occurring in the fourth proviso to Sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 19 of the 1979 Regulations. As analyzed supra, as it is Regulation 19 which deals with premature retirement of an employee and not Regulation 20, I hold that acceptance by the appointing authority is a sine qua non to enable an employee to prematurely retire from service, unless the appointing authority has failed to communicate its disapproval for permission to allow such premature retirement, before expiry of the period of notice given by the employee indicating the date with effect from which he would proceed on such premature retirement (voluntary retirement).

15. Applying the above analysis to the fact, it is seen that the petitioner has by his letter dated November 17, 1995 signified to the respondent-Bank his intention to avail the benefit of voluntary retirement. In accordance with the mandate of Regulation 29(1) of the 1995 Regulations, the date with effect from which the petitioner's intent to voluntarily retire from service would effectuate, is February 16, 1996. If the appointing authority of the respondent-bank had not communicated its refusal to grant permission for retirement of the petitioner before February 16, 1996, then in accordance with the present proviso to Regulation 29(2), the retirement of the petitioner would become effective from February 16, 1996. Prior to February 16, 1996, however, the petitioner is not at liberty to proceed on voluntary retirement without acceptance of such retirement by the appointing authority.

16. What then is refusal to grant permission for retirement, it is a settled principle in law that unless otherwise ordained, a decision is effective only on its communication and a communication is effective, if the decision is addressed to the addressee and put in the course of transmission to him, as to be beyond the reach of the addresser. The earliest decision of the competent authority's refusal to accord permission to the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was by way of a Fax Message to the Regional Office, Guwahati on February 1, 1996. By the said date, the respondent-bank was aware that the petitioner was on leave, (whether sanctioned or not) and was not stationed at Guwahati, but was apparently stationed at Hyderabad at his residential town. In the circumstances, the Fax Message addressed to the Zonal Officer, Guwhathi cannot be considered to be communication to the petitioner within the meaning of Regulation 29(2) of the 1995 Regulations. However, the letter dated February 3, 1996 reiterating the decision of refusal of the petitioner's application for voluntary retirement was addressed to the petitioner, at his given address in Hyderabad. There are postal endorsements to the effect that between February 8, 1996 and February 15, 1996 the house of the petitioner at the residential address at Hyderabad (given by the petitioner) was locked, a postal endorsement on February 16, 1996 to the effect that there is no such address and on Marph 11, 1996 that the party is not available for delivery at the given address. The petitioner had not intiniated to the employer that he would not be available in his Hyderabad address during the 2nd and 3rd week of February, 1996. The posting of the letter dated February 3, 1996 so as to be out of reach of the employer constitutes effective communication to the petitioner. The theoretical substratum underlying the principle that putting a decision in course of transmission so as to be beyond the reach of the addresser, constitutes effective communication, appears to be that the decision should no longer be amenable to the locus penitentiae of the decision maker. In this sense once the Bank's letter of refusal is put in the course of postal transmission, addressed to the given address of the petitioner, it would no longer be possible for the respondent bank to retrieve or review its decision. That is the point, at which, the communication is said to have been made to the petitioner.

17. In the above factual scenario, it is apparent that the respondent-bank has communicated its refusal to accord permission for the voluntary retirement of the petitioner well prior to February 16, 1996.

18. Mr. A. Sitarama Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner would also urge that no reasons are vouchsafed in the decision of the competent authority declining permission for the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. The respondent-bank does not demur from the position that it is an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, consistent with public and constitutional law injunctions, all administrative actions of the respondent-bank are required to be characterized by rationality and fairness. Occasionally recording of reasons in the order itself might be, one of the aspects of such fairness and rationality, but not invariably.

19. It would appear that commencing from December, 1996, certain charges were framed against the petitioner alleging misconduct on his part. The petitioner has also been inflicted with penalties in respect of those charges and those disciplinary proceedings are the subject matter of other writ petitions filed by the petitioner. It is not necessary to go into the validity of those disciplinary proceedings in this writ petition.

20. CBI investigation and prosecution too were pending as on the date the petitioner submitted his application for voluntary retirement. Regulation 20(3)(i) disables effectuation of a notice for availing discontinuation from service, given by an officer, unless accepted by the competent authority, even before disciplinary proceedings.

21. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons above, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot be considered as having retired from service of the respondent-bank on February 16, 1996 and for reasons alike this Court discerns no infirmity in the decision of the respondent-Bank dated February 3, 1996, declining permission for voluntary retirement of the petitioner.

22. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to invalidate the decision of the respondent-bank contained in its letter dated February 3, 1996 declining permission for voluntary retirement of the petitioner on the singular ground that the reasons for decision have not been recorded in the letter itself. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.