Parameshwar N Hegde vs DEPTT OF POSTS on 14 October 2026

O R D E R

Per: Hon’ble Shri Santosh Mehra ……Member(A) Through this OA, the applicant has sought the following reliefs: “(A) Quash O/o Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Div, Karwar-581301, letter no-KWR/PLI-RPLI/Misc- Incentive/Dlgs/2022-23, dated-15.06.2022, vide Annexure A-3. Issued by Respondent no 4. (B) Quash O/o Superintendent of Post offices, Karwar Div, Karwar-581301, letter no KWR/B-733/VRS/PNH/2023, dated- 16.01.2024, vide Annexure A-11. Issued by Respondent no 4. (C) Quash O/o Post Master General, North Karnataka Region, Dharwad-580001, Memo No-NKR/STA-2/329/2024, dated- 27.02.2024, vide Annexure A-14. Issues by Respondent no 3. (D) Quash O/o Superintendent of Post Offices, Belagavi Div, Belagavi-590001, Memo No-BGV/F-2/Disc/PNH/ADA//2025, dated- 09.05.2025, vide Annexure A-22. Issues by Respondent no 5. (E) Consequently, declare that applicant and relieved from service from 20.12.2023 and further direct to settle the terminal benefits with interest. (F) Grant any other relief as deemed fit into the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of Justice & equality.”

1. The facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(i) The applicant, appointed as BPM in the Postal Department in 1986, was promoted to Group ‘D’ cadre in 1991 and subsequently as Postman. During 2019-2020, he procured 22 RPLI Policies for which he claimed incentives. He TARU LATA

TARU LATA

submits that a wrong and malicious report was submitted against him by the IP who did not have good relations with him, on the basis of which he was asked to remit Rs. 18754/-.

(ii) As the applicant met with an accident and was not keeping good health, he submitted a notice for VRS on 19.08.2023 under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules, 2021 and sought retirement w.e.f. 20.12.2023. He got self-relieved from duty on 20.12.2023 after the statutory notice period was over. Subsequently, he received an intimation on 16.1.2024 regarding rejection of his voluntary retirement and a Charge-memo dated 09.05.2025 under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 was issued to him, which according to him is unsustainable. In view of the non-acceptance of his voluntary retirement, non-settlement of terminal benefits and initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings under Rule 14, by the Respondents which are illegal and arbitrary, he has filed this OA.

2. Applicant

(i) The Learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as BPM w.e.f. 17.08.1986. He was promoted to Group ‘D’ cadre on 18.03.1991 and subsequently as Postman. While working as Mail Overseer, he procured 22 RPLI policies during 2019-2020 under his Agency code and claimed the eligible incentives for the same. Two years later, based on the representation submitted by BPM Balkar BO, dated 17.05.2022 an inquiry was conducted. Based on the Inquiry Report, a letter was issued to him dated 15.06.2022 by the Supdt of Post Offices, stating that the applicant had: TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(a) Wrongly claimed incentives with respect to 22 RPLI Policies which were actually procured by BPM Balkar.

(b) Wrongly claimed incentives regarding 3 RPLI policies procured by BPM Mutta BL and 3 RPLI policies procured by ABPM Mutta BO. The letter further directed the applicant to credit/refund the amount of incentive of Rs. 18754/- to the Department within three days, as they were wrongly claimed by him.

(ii) As the matter stood thus, the applicant went on long medical leave, duly enclosing medical certificates in view of an accident suffered by him on 09.05.2023 which disabled him in performance of duties. Due to continuing health issues, he submitted notice for Voluntary Retirement on 19.08.2023 under provision of rule 43(1) of CCS Pensions Rules, 2021, as he had already completed 32 years of service.

(iii) However, the Superintendent of Post Office vide letter dated 31.08.2023 informed him to attend the inquiry regarding non-payment of incentives and further stated that his VRS papers will be processed only after completion of enquiry. He was issued another letter on 17.11.2023 directing him to join duty as in his reply dated 14.09.2023, the applicant stated that he was not joining duty due to health issues. The applicant assured the respondents through his letters dated 14.09.2023 and 11.11.2023 about his willingness to attend the inquiry and cooperate with Inquiry Officer.

(iv) The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant self- relieved himself from service on 20.12.2023, as neither any intimation of acceptance nor rejection of his VRS application dated 19.01.2023 was received TARU LATA

TARU LATA

by him during the said period. He also represented to Supdt of Post Office vide letter dated 26.12.2023 to settle his terminal benefits. He was informed vide letter dated 16.1.2024 that his VRS notice was rejected as per Rule 43 under Government of India decisions (1)(iii).

(v) The applicant submitted repeated representations dated 25.1.2024, 29.1.2024, 08.03.2024, 16.03.2024 and 2.01.2025 to the higher echelons of his Department but to no avail. He received a reply dated 27.02.2024 from the Director of Post Services regarding his representation and another letter dated 28.08.2024 from the Supdt of Post Offices directing him to join duty immediately.

(vi) Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the repeated representations of the applicant citing Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules 2021, Rule 48(1)(a), 48(A) and Rule 56(1) of FR and 56(M) 56(K), did not elicit appropriate response from the respondents. On the contrary, he was issued Charge memo under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules vide Memo No. BGV/F- 2/Disc/PNH/ADA/2025 dated 09.05.2025 to which he sent a detailed reply on 19.05.2025. Preliminary inquiry has been initiated against him vide letter No. ASP/KWR/IO/PNH/2025 dated 28.07.2025.

(vii) Learned counsel for the applicant summarizes his arguments by stating that the applicant had completed 32 years of clean service and due to an accident, in which he suffered serious injuries, he applied for VRS as per the laid down rules. After completion of the statutory period, he self-relieved himself from 22.12.2023, on which date no disciplinary proceedings were TARU LATA

TARU LATA

pending against him and no rejection of his VRS Application was issued to him during the notice period.

(viii) The decision of the respondents to reject his VRS after his self-relief and beyond statutory period and subsequent initiation of Disciplinary Proceedings, is illegal and unsustainable. Hence, the orders issued by the respondents should be set aside and he should be relieved w.e.f. 20.12.2023 and he should be granted all terminal benefits.

3. Respondents: The learned counsel for the respondents has filed the reply statement, in which it is stated as follows:

(i) The applicant joined as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) on 17.08.1986 and got promoted to Group D cadre on 18.03.1991 and again promoted to Postman cadre w.e.f. 22.07.1994. He worked as Mail Overseer in Honnavar Sub Division from 01.01.2003 to 23.06.2022. While he was working there, an enquiry was conducted against him by Inspector Posts Honnavar Sub Division on a complaint received against the applicant dated 17.03.2022 from BPM Balkur BO regarding non—receipt of incentives by the complainant. The inquiry concluded that the applicant had wrongly claimed incentives with respect to 22 RPLI policies procured by BPM Balkur an also 3 RPLI policies procured by BPM Mutta BL. It is pointed out that the applicant had refused to furnish his statement to the IP who had enquired into the matter.

(ii) Based on the Inquiry Report, Respondent No. 4 through letter No. KWR/PLI-RPLI/Misc-Incentive/Dlgs/2022-23 dated 15.06.2022, directed the applicant to refund Rs. 18754/- to the Department which he had wrongly TARU LATA

TARU LATA

claimed. The applicant submitted a letter dated 12.07.2022 to Respondent No. 4 to conduct a fresh inquiry by an unbiased authority, making allegations of malice and malafide on behalf of the IP who had conducted earlier enquiry.

(iii) Another Inquiry was accordingly conducted in the matter by ASP (HQ) Karwar division, who also came to the same conclusion in his inquiry Report dated 26.06.2023 (Annexure R7). He concluded that the applicant by misusing his position as Mail Overseer betrayed BPM Balkur, BPM Mutta and ABPM Mutta BO and wrongly collected incentives with respect to a total of 28 RPLI policies though he had neither contacted any policy holder nor collected orders form for the first premium account etc. He also mentioned that the statement of the applicant could not be recorded as he was on continuous medical leave.

(iv) Learned counsel for the respondents points out that the applicant was continuously on medical leave for almost seven months and his medical leave record is as follows: Medical leave from

10.05.2023 to 27.07.2023 Commuted leave with MC 31.07.2023 to 31.08.2023 Half Pay Leave with MC

01.09.2023 to 01.10.2023 Half Pay Leave with MC

02.10.2023 to 31.10.2023 Half Pay Leave with MC

01.11.2023 to 30.11.2023 Half Pay Leave with MC

01.12.2023 to 19.12.2023

(v) The learned counsel for the respondents submits that while being on medical leave, the applicant submitted a notice for Voluntary Retirement from Service (VRS) under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules, 2021 dated 19.08.2023 and requested Respondent No. 4 for his acceptance w.e.f. 20.12.2023. The Respondent No. 4 promptly informed the applicant vide letter dated 31.08.2023 that the voluntary retirement papers will be processed only after completion of enquiry/Disciplinary proceedings against him and also referred to Letter of PM TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Honnavar SO dated 18.08.2023 wherein the applicant was directed to join duty and also to attend enquiry against him. The same was also reiterated to him on 17.11.2023 vide Annexure A8 by Supdt of Post Offices Karwar Division.

(vi) The learned counsel for the respondents avers that finding that the applicant was continuously extending medical leave, PM Honnavar wrote letter to District Surgeon, Karwar dated 16.12.2023 requesting for second medical opinion for the applicant. However, the applicant joined duty on 20.12.2023 along with a medical fitness certificate and got himself self-relieved on VRS the same date without any sanction or approval of the Competent Authority. The Charge report submitted by the applicant was self-prepared and not authenticated/validated by Sub-appointing Authority.

(vii) On receipt of the “Relieved on VRS” from the applicant on 21.12.2023, the Respondent No. 4 directed PM Honnavar SO to treat his absence from duty as unauthorized and also issued Show Cause Notice to him for his unauthorized absence. Accordingly, Show Cause Notice dated 23.12.2023 was issued to the applicant to which the applicant furnished a reply on 27.12.2023 stating that he got relieved on 20.12.2023 under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules 2021.

(viii) The applicant was again informed on 16.1.2024 that his VRS notice has been rejected and he was directed to report for duty immediately. The applicant submitted an appeal to DPS NK Region Dharwad, against Respondent No. 4’s Order of rejection, which was also rejected by him, pointing out that avoiding attendance in the inquiry and self-relieving on VR without approval of competent authority was unacceptable and highly irregular and he was directed to report for duty immediately. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(ix) The applicant submitted a Review Petition vide Letter dated 08.03.2024, which Respondent No. 2 rejected vide memo dated 21.08.2024, and he was also directed to join duty immediately. Another Show Cause Notice was issued to him on 02.09.2024 for his unauthorized absence from duty to which he replied that his VRS has become effective from 20.12.2023 and he was not unauthorizedly absent.

(x) Based on the report of the IP Honnavar sub division dated 11.09.2024, Respondent No. 5 was made Adhoc Disciplinary Authority as Respondent No. 4, the Appointing Authority was found to be a material witness in the case. Accordingly, Chargesheet under Rule 14 has been issued by ADA (Adhoc Disciplinary Authority) to the applicant on 09.05.2025 (Annexure A22). The applicant submitted his defense statement on 19.05.2025 and he denied all the charges. However, the ADA has appointed Inquiry Officer/Presenting Officer for conduct of inquiry under Rule 14.

(xi) The learned counsel for the respondents states that per the provisions of Rule 43(1) of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 “At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty year’s qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service…” and as per the provisions of Rule 43(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules – 2021 “The notice of voluntary retirement under sub-rule (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 TARU LATA

TARU LATA

from the date of expiry of the said period”. He has also enclosed Copy of the Rule 43(1) and 43(2) of CCS (Pension) Rules as Annexure R21.

(xii) Questioning the mode of self-relief resorted to by the applicant, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the applicant wrote “Relieved on VRS”, on his charge Report. He states that such method is not mentioned under Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules 1972 & 2021 and hence, it was irregular and not as per the extant rules. Accordingly, Respondent No. 4 had rejected his self-relief and directed him to join duty. He further submits that Respondents had very emphatically conveyed to the applicant that the voluntary retirement papers will be processed only after completion of the Inquiry/Disciplinary Proceedings and he was repeatedly asked to attend the same. However, the applicant self-relieved himself from the service on 20.12.2023, and that too without attending inquiry. He submits that despite the fact that on the representation of the applicant, the CPMG Karnataka conveyed to the applicant that “a Government servant does not have the liberty to relieve himself from service” and directed him to cooperate with the Appointing Authority in completion of residual investigation and also directed the Respondent No. 4 to complete unfinished process of accepting the applicant’s VRS request, the applicant refused to join duty.

(xiii) Conceding that the applicant did meet with an accident on 09.05.2023 and submitted a medical certificate indicating left clavicle fracture, issued by Tejaswini Hospital Mangalore, the learned counsel for the respondents points out that subsequent to it, the applicant failed to submit any further hospital/medical treatment records and Discharge Summary reports. He further TARU LATA

TARU LATA

points out that when the applicant joined duty on 28.07.2023, the medical certificate submitted by him was not issued by any authorized doctor. Despite the fact that Respondent No. 4 had repeatedly asked the applicant to join the duty, the applicant refused to comply with the orders.

(xiv) Justifying the non-acceptance of VRS applicant of the applicant by the respondents, learned counsel for the respondents invites my attention to Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 2021, which states as follows: “Rule 43 of CCS (Pension) Rules 2021 under GOI decision (1)(iii) – A notice of Voluntary Retirement given after completion of twenty years of qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except those in which disciplinary proceedings are pending/contemplated against the Government Servant.” The learned counsel for the respondents concluded by stating that in the light of above, the OA should be dismissed.

4. Rejoinder:

(i) Countering the averments of the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder on 31.03.2026. In the rejoinder, he had essentially reiterated the same arguments which are already covered in the OA. He highlights the points that the applicant was neither kept under suspension, nor any disciplinary or judicial proceedings were initiated/going on nor a Charge Memorandum was issued either on the date of voluntary retirement or the date on which he got relieved after three months’ notice.

(ii) He further states that in accordance with provisions of FR 56(k) and Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules 1972 and Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules, the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Appointing Authorities can refuse acceptance, in case if the employee was under suspension OR Charge Memorandum was served OR disciplinary proceedings were pending. In the absence of these conditions with respect to the applicant, his VRS and self-relief was as per the Rules.

(iii) In this regard, learned counsel for the applicant has invited my attention to the following Judgments:

a. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India judgment in Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020, UCO Bank & Ors vs. S K Shrivastava dated 7.04.2026.

b. Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat judgment in Special Civil Application No. 1081 of 2008, Nirangana R. Patel vs. State of Gujarat dated 19.07.2023.

5. Additional Reply:

(i) In response to the rejoinder filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the respondents also filed an additional reply. In his additional reply also, the learned counsel for the respondents essentially reiterated the points which he mentioned in the reply statement. He also reiterated that there is no provision/procedure like self-relief or relief without the approval of the competent authority for voluntary retirement. He submits that Respondent No. 4 has clearly informed the applicant that, his voluntary retirement papers will be processed only after completion of enquiry/Disciplinary proceeding, still the applicant has neither joined duty nor attended the enquiry. He asserts that self- relief is not a valid procedure for retiring from central civil service on voluntary retirement.

(ii) He further states that Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension rules 2021 and Rule 56(k) of FR are related to superannuation on retirement, but the applicant himself TARU LATA

TARU LATA

proceeded on VRS without approval of the competent authority and the applicant has not attained the age of 60 years. As per GOI decision (1)(iii) under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules, 2021, (iii) guidelines for acceptance of notice, such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except those, (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant.

(iii) While conceding that neither the applicant was kept under suspension nor a chargesheet memo has been issued against him, he states that there were a prima facie case of wrong doing against him which was a good and sufficient reason for initiating disciplinary action against the applicant. In this regard, he invites my attention to the NKRO Letter No. NKR/PLI/305/2022-2023 dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure -3) which states: “Disciplinary action should be initiated against the mail overseer along with recovery of the incentive amount for this serious and intended lapse on his part and also for refusing to give his statement”. But the applicant neither cooperated nor appeared for departmental investigation as he was on medical leave continuously. Hence, the enquiry could not be completed.

(iv) He sums up by saying that the applicant was informed and reminded several times for the credit/refund of the incentives of Rs. 18754/- and also for joining and attending inquiry. He was, therefore, well aware that the case was under investigation against him. Hence, the VRS self-relief attained by him is incorrect and OA has no grounds to stand upon and it should be dismissed.

6.

Conclusion:

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

I have given thoughtful consideration to the averments and arguments of the learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents. I have also gone through all the documents and records which were brought on record by the respective counsels.

At this stage, it would be useful to go through the relevant documents/records and the judgments of the Superior Courts, which have been submitted by the rival counsel for better appreciation of the entire issue and for arriving at correct conclusion. They are reproduced as follows:

(i) In Annexure A3, letter dated 15.06.2022, it is stated as follows: “भारतीय डाक ǒवभाग/DEPARTMENT OF POSTS डाक अधी¢क काया[लय, कारवार मंडल, कारवार - 581301 Office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar-581301 Ph: 08382-221431 Fax:08382-221208 E-mail dokarwar.ka @indiapost.gov.in To

Registered AD Shri P N Hegde, Mail Overseer, Honavar Sub Division, Honavar-581334 KWR/PLI-RPLI/Misc-Incentive/Digs/2022-2 dated Karwar 581301, the 15.06.2022 ǒवषय /Sub: Non-Payment of incentive-case of Shri Narayan S Yaji GDSBPM Balkur BO a/w Melin Idgunji SO उãलेख/Ref: Complaint of Shri Narayan S Yaji, GDSBPM Balkur BO a/w Melin Idgunji SO dated 17.03 2022 With reference to the above cited subject, Shri Narayan S Yaji, GDSBPM Balkur BO a/w Melin Idgunji SO has complained that for the policies procured by him during the year 2019-20 incentive is not paid to him and he handed over all the proposals to you for medical examination. Hence, the complaint was entrusted to IP Honavar Sub Division for detailed enquiry. During enquiry it is revealed that BPM Balkur has procured TARU LATA

TARU LATA

22 RPLI policies during 2019-20 but all these policies are shown as procured in your Agent ID KNPM264 and you have claimed the incentive During the course of enquiry, it is further noticed that the 3 RPLI proposals procured by BPM Mutta BO and 3 RPLI proposals procured by ABPM Mutta BO a/w Hadinbal SO on 30.07.2021 are also shown as procured in your agent ID and have claimed the incentive for these policies also. The total incentive of these policies works out to be Rs 18754/-Therefore you are hereby directed to credit/refund the amount of incentive Rs. 18754/- claimed by you on these policies to Department within 3 days from the receipt of this letter for its payment to the genuine officials. डाक अधी¢क, कारवार मंडल, कारवार - 581301. Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar - 581301.”

(ii) In Annexure A5, letter dated 31.08.2023, it is stated as follows: “Department of Posts Office of Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar-581301. e-mail: dokarwar.ka@indiapost.gov.in, Phone No: 08382-221431, 221435 Regd AD To, Shri Parameshwar N Hegde Postman Honavar Near Idgunji Cross Gunavante-Honavar No: KWR/B-733/VRS/PNH/2023, dated @Karwar-581301, the 31.08.2023 Sub:- Notice for retirement under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules 2021-case of Shri Parameshwar N Hegde, Postman Honavar SO Ref: - Your letter dated 19.08.2023 This office is in receipt of your application dated 19.08.2023 seeking permission for voluntary retirement. In this regard, please refer to PM Honavar SO letter dated 18.08.2023 wherein you were directed to join duty for attending enquiry i/r/o non-payment of incentive case of GDS BPM Balkur BO a/w Melin Idgunji SO and BPM and ABPM Mutta BO. Further this is to inform that Voluntary retirement papers will be processed only after completion of enquiry/disciplinary proceedings. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

Superintended of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar – 581 301.”

(iii) Annexure A8 dated 17.11.2023 states as follows: “Department of Posts Office of Superintendent of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar-581301. e-mail: dokarwar.ka@indiapost.gov.in, Phone No: 08382-221431, 221435 Regd AD To, Shri Parameshwar N Hegde Postman Honavar Near Idgunji Cross Gunavante-Honavar No: KWR/B-733/VRS/PNH/2023, dated @Karwar-581301, the 17.11.2023 Sub:- Notice for retirement under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules 2021-case of Shri Parameshwar N Hegde, Postman Honavar SO Ref: - Your letter dated 11.11.2023 With reference to your letter cited above you are hereby once again instructed to join duty for attending enquiry and then you may apply for leave. In this regard, kindly intimate the date of joining for conducting enquiry.

Superintended of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar – 581 301.

Copy to: The Postmaster Honavar SO for information and n/a. Kindly intimate as on date EL/HPL balance of Shri P N Hegde, Postman Honavar SO and also intimate whether the official remained unauthorized absence from duty. Superintended of Post Offices, Karwar Division, Karwar – 581 301.”

(iv) From the above three letters, it is very clear that the applicant was given clear intimation of inquiry going on against him. Furthermore, Annexures A5 and A8 clearly mention the subject as follows: “Sub: Notice for retirement under Rule 43(1) of CCS Pension Rules 2021-case of Shri Parameshwar N Hegde, Postman Honavar SO” TARU LATA

TARU LATA

It is with respect to the above specific subject that the applicant has been informed that his voluntary retirement paper will be processed only completion of inquiry/disciplinary proceedings. It is true that these two letters in response to the letters for VRS by the applicant do not categorically indicate Acceptance or Rejection of this VRS application, nor indicate formal commencement of disciplinary proceedings. However, it appears from the content and tone of the letters that the respondents had not accepted the applicant’s request for VRS, at that point of time.

(v) It is pertinent to note that the applicant had been continually extending his medical leave on several occasions and he was on leave from 10.05.2023 to 19.12.2023 as per the letters. On this pretext, he had also not been attending the inquiry continuing against him. However, no record/document has been furnished to indicate that the Medical Leave, based on representations sent by the applicant, has been granted to him by the respondents. In fact, Annexure A8 has the following post- scriptum address to the Postmaster Honnavar SO, which states as follows: “Copy to: The Postmaster Honavar SO for information and n/a. Kindly intimate as on date EL/HPL balance of Shri P N Hegde, Postman Honavar SO and also intimate whether the official remained unauthorized absence from duty.”

Thus, it appears from the above, that though the applicant had given several letters requesting for medical leave, medical leave had not been sanctioned to the applicant and he was essentially on unauthorized leave/AWL from 10.05.2023.

(vi) At this stage, it would be apposite to now have a look at the relevant portions of the extant CCS (CCA) Rules and FRSR related to VRS.

(a) In Annexure A20, it is stated as follows: TARU LATA

TARU LATA

“43. Retirement on completion of twenty years' qualifying service.- (1) At any time after a Government servant has completed twenty years' qualifying service, he may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority, retire from service and in the case of such retirement the Government servant shall be entitled to a retiring pension calculated in accordance with rule 44:

Provided that before giving notice of voluntary retirement, a Government servant shall request the appropriate administrative authority for a certificate regarding completion of qualifying service of twenty years on the intended date of retirement and the administrative authority shall issue the required certificate within fifteen days of such request by the Government servant and if no such certificate is issued by the administrative authority within the prescribed period of fifteen days, the Government servant may give the notice of voluntary retirement without such certificate:

Provided further that before accepting the notice for voluntary retirement and passing orders in this regard, the appointing authority shall satisfy itself that the Government servant has completed the qualifying service of twenty years:

...............

(2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-rule (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) It shall be open to the appropriate appointing authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who (3) seeks to retire under this rule in the following circumstances, -

(i) If the Government servant is under suspension, or

(ii) If a charge sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending, or

(iii) If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending:

Provided that in cases where the appointing authority proposes to accept the notice of voluntary retirement in spite of the circumstances referred to in this sub-rule, approval of President shall be obtained.”

(b) Government of India’s Decisions (1)(iii) under Rule 43, it is mentioned as follows:

“(iii) Guidelines for acceptance of notice:- A notice of voluntary retirement given after completion of twenty years' qualifying service will require acceptance by the appointing authority if the date of retirement on the expiry of the notice would be earlier TARU LATA

TARU LATA

than the date on which the Government servant concerned could have retired voluntarily under the existing rules applicable to him [e.g., FR 56 (k), Rule 48 of the Pension Rules, Article 459 (i) of CSRs or any other similar rule ]. Such acceptance may be generally given in all cases except those (a) in which disciplinary proceedings are pending or contemplated against the Government servant concerned for the imposition of a major penalty and the disciplinary authority, having regard to the circumstances of the case, is of the view that the imposition of the penalty of removal or dismissal from service would be warranted in the case, or (b) in which prosecution is contemplated or may have been launched in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned. If it is proposed to accept the notice of voluntary retirement even in such cases, approval of the Minister-in-charge should be obtained in regard to Group 'A' and Group 'B' Government servants and that of the Head of the Department in the cases of Group 'C' and Group 'D' Government servants. Even where the notice of voluntary retirement given by a Government servant requires acceptance by the appointing authority, the Government servant giving notice may presume acceptance and the retirement shall be effective in terms of the notice unless the competent authority issues an order to the contrary before the expiry of the period of notice.”

(c) Government of India’s Decisions of Chapter VII, Rule 48 of CCS Pension Rules states as follows: “(1) Voluntary retirement under FR 56 (k), etc. and amendment of Rules- The provisions of Fundamental Rule 56 (k), 56 (m) and Rule 48 of COS (Pension) Rules, 1972 relating to acceptance of request of voluntary retirement have been revisited as per the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench judgment, dated the 4th August, 2010 in O.A. No. 1600/2009 filed by Shri Gopal Singh Purohit v. Uol and others to bring them at par with each other.

2. The matter has been examined in consultation with Department of Pension and Pensioners' Welfare and the Ministry of Law. FR 56 (k) and 56 (m) have been amended vide Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. GSR 27(E), dated the 17th January, 2014. It shall be open to the appropriate authority to withhold permission to a Government servant who seeks to retire under FR 56 (k) or 56 (m) in the following circumstances:-

(i) If the Government servant is under suspension; or

(ii) If a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(iii) If judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct are pending.”

(d) According to Rule 56 of Fundamental Rules (FR), it is as follows: “F.R. 56.¹[ (a) Except as otherwise provided in this rule, every Government servant shall retire from service on the afternoon of the last day of the month in which he attains the age of sixty years. ...........

(k) (1) Any Government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years, if he is in Group 'A' or Group the age of thirty-five years), and in all other cases after he has attained the 'B' service or post, (and had entered Government service before attaining age of fifty-five years; .........

(c) it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to retire under this clause, if-

(i) the Government servant is under suspension: or

(ii) a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or

(iii) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending. .....................

(m) A Government servant in Group 'C' post who is not governed by any pension rules, may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appropriate Authority, retire from service after he has completed thirty years service; Provided that it shall be open to the Appropriate Authority to withhold permission to a Government servant, who seeks to retire proceedings (should be 'if');

(i) the Government servant is under suspension; or

(ii) a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; or

(iii) if judicial proceedings on charges which may amount to grave misconduct, are pending.”

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(vii) It is seen that the applicant had given notice for VRS on 19.08.2023 and he has self-relieved himself on 20.12.2023 after completion of stipulated three months. It is further seen that on the date of his VRS the applicant was neither under suspension nor any Disciplinary proceedings nor any judicial proceedings were pending against him. Hence, his case is fully covered by the CCS (CCA) Rules, FRSR Rules and CCS Pension Rules with respect to VRS.

(viii) It would be useful to now have a look at the relevant portions of the Judgments furnished by the counsel, they are cited as below: (A) Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2020 between UCO Bank & Ors. vs. SK Shrivastava dated 07.04.2026, stated as follows: Quote “……………………..

19. In the case of Dinesh Chandra Sangma Vs. State of Assam & Ors.[(1977) 4 SCC 441] a Three-Judge bench of this Court was having an occasion to deal with a similar issue of voluntary retirement in the context of Fundamental Rule 56 (c), wherein this Court observed as follows- “7. Before we proceed further we may read F. Rule 56 as amended: "F. Rule 56. (a) The date of compulsory retirement of a Government servant is the date on which he attains the age of 55 years. He may be retained in service after this age with sanction of the State Government on public grounds which must be recorded in writing, and proposals for the retention of a Government servant in service after this age should not be made except in very special circumstances.

(b) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the appropriate authority may, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest to do so, retire government servant by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice, TARU LATA

TARU LATA

after he has attained fifty years of age or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.

(c) Any government servant may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the appropriate authority, retire from service after he has attained the age of fifty years or has completed 25 years of service, whichever is earlier.” ………………..

8. .......While the Government reserves its right to compulsorily retire a government servant, even against his wish, there is a corresponding right of the government servant under F. Rule 56(c) to voluntarily retire from service by giving the Government three months' notice in writing. There is no question of acceptance of the request for voluntary retirement by the Government when the government servant exercises his right under F. Rule 56 (c). Mr Niren De is therefore right in conceding this position. …………………..

17. The High Court committed an error of law holding that consent of the Government was necessary to give legal effect to the voluntary retirement of the Appellant under F. Rule 56(c). Since the conditions of F. Rule 56(c) are fulfilled in the instant case, the Appellant must be held to have lawfully retired as notified by him with effect from August 2, 1976.”

20. By the said judgment it was made clear that, as per relevant rules, to give effect to the voluntary retirement, the consent of the Government was not necessary since the notice given by employee reflects the intention to retire voluntarily from the date so specified in the notice. Nonetheless, it appears that the said provision did not contain any option on the part of the government to refuse the request for voluntary retirement.

21. In another judgment of three-Judge Bench in B.J. Shelat Vs. State of Gujarat and Ors.[(1978) 2 SCC 202], wherein this Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction of the authority to take a disciplinary action and was observed as thus: - "6. We will proceed to consider the question of the jurisdiction of the authority to take disciplinary action against the Appellant after his retirement. It may be recalled that the Appellant gave a notice intimating his intention to retire on July 17. 1973 stating that he intended to retire on reaching the age of 55 years on TARU LATA

TARU LATA

December 3, 1973. He attained the age of 55 years on December 3, 1973 and it is common ground that the notice of suspension was issued by the High Court only on December 11, 1973. But before December 3, 1973 it is admitted that a show-cause notice was issued on November 23, 1973 by the Chief City Magistrate on the directions of the High Court calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation and the Appellant submitted his explanation on November 26, 1973.

7. Rule 161 of the Bombay Civil Services Rules provides for the retirement of Government servants before attaining the age of superannuation. Rule 161(1)(aa) provides- (a): "Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a):

(1) An appointing authority shall, if he is of the opinion that it is in the public interest so to do, have the absolute right to retire any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice: ………………… Sub-rule (2)(ii) is as follows: "Any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies may, by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service... and in any other case, after he has attained the age of 55 years." There is no dispute that the Rule applicable is Rule 161(2) (i) and the Appellant is entitled to retire by giving a notice of not less than 3 months after he has attained the age of 55 years. Under Rule 161(1)(aa)(1) the appointing authority has an absolute right to retire any Government servant to whom clause (a) applies in public interest by giving him notice of not less than three months in writing or three months' pay and allowances in lieu of such notice. But the Government servant has no such absolute right. A right is conferred on the Government servant under Rule 161(2)(ii) to retire by giving not less than three months' notice on his attaining the prescribed age. Such a right is subject to the proviso which is incorporated to the sub-section which reads as follows: "Provided that it shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire to a Government servant who is under suspension, or against whom departmental TARU LATA

TARU LATA

proceedings are pending or contemplated, and who seeks to retire under this sub-clause." But for the proviso a Government servant would be at liberty to retire by giving not less than three months' notice in writing to the appointing authority on attaining the prescribed age."

22. In the above case, the judgment of Dinesh Chandra Sangma vs. State of Assam & Ors.[(1997) 4 SCC 441] was relied upon and applying the law as prevalent, the Court observed as thus: "8. .........In the case before us it is incumbent on the appointing authority to withhold permission to retire on one of the conditions mentioned in the proviso. We are of the view that the proviso contemplates a positive action by the appointing authority. The words "It shall be open to the appointing authority to withhold permission" would indicate that the appointing authority has got an option to withhold permission and that could be exercised by communicating its intention to withhold permission to the Government servant. The appointing authority may have considered the question and might not have taken a decision either way or after considering the facts of the case might have come to the conclusion that it is better to allow the Government servant to retire than take any action against him. For the proviso to become operative it is necessary that the Government should not only take a decision but communicate it to the Government servant." .............. “25. In another case of S.K. Singhal (Supra), this Court was having an occasion to consider the pari materia provision of Punjab Civil Services Rules wherein the rule contemplates about "notice to retire" and "not a request seeking permission to retire". In the said case, this Court has relied upon the above referred three judgments and held as thus: "13. Thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntarily retire is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangma case ((1977) 4 SCC 441: 1978 SCC (L&S) 7] by the relevant rules and there is no provision in the rules to withhold permission in certain contingencies the voluntary retirement comes into effect automatically on the expiry of the period specified in the notice. If. however, as in B.J. Shelat case ((1978) 2 SCC 202: 1978 SCC (L&S) 208) and as in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 76: 1995 SCC (L&S) 256] the authority concerned is empowered to withhold TARU LATA

TARU LATA

permission to retire if certain conditions exist, viz., in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmental enquiry is pending or is contemplated, the mere pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on the expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the authority concerned must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B.J. Shelat case [(1978) 2 SCC 202 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 208] and in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 76: 1995 SCC (L&S) 256] before the expiry of the notice period. Consequently, there is no requirement of an order of acceptance of the notice to be communicated to the employee nor can it be said that non-communication of acceptance should be treated as amounting to withholding of permission."

14. Before referring to the second category of cases where the rules require a positive acceptance of the notice of voluntary retirement and communication thereof, it is necessary to refer to the decision of this Court in Baljit Singh (Dr) v. State of Haryana [(1997) 1 SCC 754 : 1997 SCC (LAS) 313] strongly relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellants and to Power Finance Corpn. Ltd. u. Pramod Kumar Bhatia (1997) 4 SCC 280: 1997 SCC (L&S) 941]. The former case arose under Rule 5.32(B) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. That rule extracted earlier contains an express provision in the proviso to sub-rule (2) that the retirement takes effect automatically if refusal is not communicated within 3 months. In that case, when the employee gave notice for voluntary retirement on 20-9 1993, criminal cases were pending against him. After expiry of 3 months, on 25- 2-1994, the competent authority declined to accept the notice. A two-Judge Bench of this Court, however, held that the voluntary retirement did not come about automatically on the expiry of the notice period but that it could take effect only upon acceptance of the notice by the Government and that the acceptance must also be communicated and till then the jural relationship of master and servant continues. This Court referred only to the decision of the two-Judge Bench in Sayed Muzaffar Mir case [1995 Supp (1) SCC 76: 1995 SCC (L&S) 256] and stated that that case was to be confined to its own facts. The two-Judge Bench of this Court in Baljit Singh case [(1997) 1 SCC 754: 1997 SCC (L&S) 313] did not notice that there were two three- Judge Bench cases in Dinesh Chandra Sangma (1977) 4 SCC 441 : 1978 SCC (L&S) 7] and Shelat [(1978) 2 SCC 202 : 1978 TARU LATA

TARU LATA

SCC (L&S) 208] taking the view under similar rules that a positive order was to be passed within the notice period withholding permission to retire and that the said order was also to be communicated to the employee during the said period. By stating that an order of acceptance of the notice was necessary and that the said acceptance must be communicated to the employee and till that was done the jural relationship continued and there was no automatic snapping thereof on the expiry of 3 months' period, the two-Judge Bench, in our view, has gone contrary to the two three-Judge Bench cases which were not brought to its notice. In the above circumstances, we follow the two three-Judge Bench cases for deciding the case before us.” “26. After taking clue from the above judgments, if we look into the language of Regulation 29(2) of the Pension Regulation which deals with the voluntary retirement, acceptance of the notice by the appointing authority is subject to compliance of proviso, whereby refusal to let the employee retire voluntarily ought to be ordered before expiry of the notice period, and communicate, otherwise, in terms of proviso to Regulation 29(2), voluntary retirement shall be deemed to be effective on lapse of the notice period. Therefore, a positive act of passing an order of refusal is required to be undertaken by the appointing authority. .................. “43. In light of the discussions made above and by applying the rule of harmonious construction with respect to the interplay of the said provisions of the Pension Regulation and the Service Regulation, the situation as emerges is that the officer submitted his notice of voluntary retirement on 04.10.2010, giving three months' notice as required, which would be effective till 04.01.2011. In the meantime, a show cause notice was issued by the Appellant on 11.11.2010 and as discussed, it would not indicate the intention to institute disciplinary proceedings in terms of Regulation 20(3)(ii) of the Service Regulation. Nonetheless, the existence of such a show cause notice itself is not sufficient without refusal by competent authority to stop the automatic operation of the notice of voluntary retirement. In absence, the notice of voluntary retirement would take its course. In the present case, no such order of refusal or order of withholding was passed by the competent authority within the stipulated period. The notice of voluntary retirement, therefore, became effective automatically by efflux of time upon the expiry of the three-month period on 04.01.2011. This Court, accordingly, finds no infirmity in the view taken by the High Court, which is liable to be upheld. TARU LATA

TARU LATA

.................

CONCLUSION

45. In the light of discussion made hereinabove, in our view, while passing the impugned judgment, the High Court has not committed any infirmity. The judgment rendered by the High Court is after a thorough examination of facts and applicable regulations, therefore, the conclusion drawn as such is in right perspective. In our view, it is correct to hold that when an employee decides to severe master servant relationship and serves a notice indicating such intention specifying the period, by operation of law it will become effective in absence of any order of refusal. The subsequent act of issuing chargesheet and consequential order of dismissal is also not justified in law. As directed by the High Court, the Respondent shall be entitled to all consequential post-retiral benefits in terms of this order as well. The Bank is directed to settle all the dues within a period of three months along with applicable interest rate. Accordingly, the appeals filed by the Appellant-Bank fail and are, hereby, dismissed.”

Unquote (B) Likewise, in the Judgement of High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the case of Niranjana R Patel vs. State of Gujarat in R/Special Civil Application No. 1081 of 2008 dated 19.07.2023, it was stated: Quote: “……………………………

6.19. Even the conditional resignation given in 2002 200 cannot ot be accepted after the petitioner had given an application for Voluntary Retirement in 2004, which is, after and after the completion of more than 25 years of continuous service of the petitioner. Even otherwise, there is no provision for any conditional resignation. Rule 36 of the Gujarat Civil Service Rules (Rule 33-A of the Bombay Civil Service Rules, 1959) provides for resignation. The conditional resignation cannot be treated as resignation, when the leave of the petitioner was sanctioned till 15/09/2003 and the petitioner had applied for voluntary retirement before the resignation was accepted by the respondent authorities.

6.20. Even otherwise, the application of the petitioner for Voluntary Retirement was never rejected by the Respondent authorities. It is pertinent to note that Rule 49 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 explicitly stipulates that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the TARU LATA

TARU LATA

expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. As per the Rules, the voluntary retirement application is deemed to have been accepted and therefore, the orders dtd. 21/03/2006 and 20/12/2007 are bad and illegal and require to be quashed and set aside. ………………….

6.31. In the case of Suryakant Chimanlal Patel (supra), this Court has observed and held as under: "As we have held hereinabove, rule 47 of the Pension Rules does not confer power upon the appointing authority either to accept or to reject the application for voluntary retirement made by a Government servant after completion of 30 years' qualifying service. If at all the appointing authority had refused to permit the appellant to retire from service, the same was without the authority of law. Besides, this fact was not disclosed in the earlier affidavit filed in answer to the writ petition. The said communication dated 16th December, 2005 has not been placed on the record even now. As to the pending departmental inquiry, it appears that no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the appellant at the relevant time. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant in the month of November, 2006, long after the effective date of retirement. In our opinion, initiation of such departmental proceeding was also of no consequence. If the relevant rules permit, the respondents may continue such disciplinary proceeding but cannot prevent the appellant from retiring from service as envisaged by rule 47 of the Pension Rules." ……………………..

6.34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, when the application made by the petitioner after continuous service of 20 years for voluntary retirement and issued notice for voluntary retirement For 3 months to the appointing authority and the appointing authority has not refused to grant permission for retirement before the expiry of the said notice period as per Proviso (2) of Rule 48, the 'voluntary retirement has become effective from the date of expiry of the notice period and on expiry the notice period, the the petitioner would stand retired voluntarily.

7. In the result, present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/12/2007 passed by Director of Technical Education, Gujarat State is hereby quashed and set aside and consequently, the applications dated 07/06/2004 and 26/07/2004 made by the petitioner for TARU LATA

TARU LATA

voluntary retirement stand allowed and the respondent No.2 hereby directed to treat the petitioner as having been "voluntarily retired" on expiry of notice period and grant the petitioner all consequential benefits subsequent to retirement. Rule is made absolute accordingly.” Unquote

(ix) It is seen that the facts and circumstances of this case are fully covered by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and High Court cited above. It is further seen that even the issue of “Contemplation of Disciplinary Proceedings” has been adequately dealt by the Higher Courts and the balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the applicant. It is made very clear by the Superior Courts that “mere pendency of the suspension or departmental enquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on the expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the authority concerned must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B.J. Shelat case”, (page 25 supra). Thus, all the above judgments conclude as follows; (a) If all other eligibility criteria in terms of duration of service, age etc., are fulfilled, the respondents cannot reject VRS to an employee except for in three conditions i.e. suspension or existence of Disciplinary Proceedings, or judicial proceedings.

(b) If there is no specific and clear rejection of the request of the applicant representation for VRS, it is construed that VRS has been accepted.

TARU LATA

TARU LATA

(x) As is evident from the above facts and circumstances of the case, there is nothing on record indicating rejection by the respondents of the VRS notice of the applicant till expiry of the stipulated period of three months. In the light of the extant CCS Pension Rules, FRSR Rules and the judgments cited above, which are binding precedents, we find considerable merit in the OA. Hence, it is ordered as follows:

1. The OA is allowed, except for with respect to Annexure A-3.

2. Orders vide Annexures A-11 bearing No. KWR/B-733/VRS/PNH/2023 dated 16.01.2024, A-14 bearing No. NKR/STA-2/329/2024 dated 27.02.2024 and A- 22 bearing No. BGV/F-2/Disc/PNH/ADA/2025 dated 09.05.2025 are set aside.

3. The applicant is declared relieved from service w.e.f. 20.12.2023 and the respondents are directed to settle the terminal benefits as per the extant rules.

4. It is to further mention, the respondents are not in any way precluded from proceedings against the applicant under the extant CCS (CCA) Rules.

5. All pending MA(s), if any, are disposed of accordingly.

6. No order as to costs.

Sd/- (SANTOSH MEHRA) MEMBER (A)

(tl) TARU LATA

TARU LATA