The Supreme Court quashes post-retirement disciplinary action against bank officers.
The bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi has upheld the decision of the Chhattisgarh High Court and ruled in favour of the employee, holding that once a notice of voluntary retirement is not refused within the prescribed period, it becomes effective automatically.
The case arose from a dispute involving an officer of UCO Bank, S.K. Shrivastava, who had served the bank for several decades and eventually held the position of Branch Manager. On October 4, 2010, he submitted a notice seeking voluntary retirement under the applicable Pension Regulations, which required a three-month notice period.
During this period, the bank issued a show-cause notice on November 11, 2010, in connection with certain alleged irregularities in transactions. However, no formal disciplinary proceedings were initiated within the notice period. After the expiry of three months, and having received no refusal from the competent authority, Shrivastava treated himself as voluntarily retired and stopped attending duties with effect from May 16, 2011.
Subsequently, the bank attempted to reject his voluntary retirement through a communication dated June 29, 2011, which was never properly served. Much later, on March 5, 2012, a chargesheet was issued, followed by disciplinary proceedings and dismissal from service. Aggrieved by these actions, Shrivastava approached the High Court, which ruled in his favour, granting him retiral benefits and quashing the disciplinary action.
Before the Supreme Court, the primary issue was whether voluntary retirement becomes effective automatically if not expressly refused within the notice period, and whether a mere show-cause notice could be treated as initiation of disciplinary proceedings.
The Supreme Court held that under the relevant Pension Regulations, a notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance, but if the employer fails to refuse it within the stipulated notice period, the retirement becomes effective by default. The Court emphasized that a positive and timely act of refusal is necessary; otherwise, the law deems the retirement to have taken effect automatically.
On the question of disciplinary proceedings, the Court clarified that issuance of a show-cause notice does not amount to initiation of formal disciplinary proceedings. It observed that such a notice merely seeks an explanation and does not indicate a definitive decision to commence disciplinary action. Therefore, in the absence of formal initiation of proceedings within the notice period, the bank could not rely on pending proceedings to deny voluntary retirement.
The Court further held that since Shrivastava had already retired by operation of law upon expiry of the notice period, the subsequent chargesheet issued in March 2012 was invalid. The disciplinary proceedings and the dismissal order were quashed. The Court also affirmed that once the employer-employee relationship ceases, disciplinary jurisdiction cannot be exercised unless proceedings had been validly initiated prior to retirement.
The Court harmonised the Pension Regulations and Service Regulations, observing that while employers have the power to refuse voluntary retirement in cases of pending disciplinary proceedings, such refusal must be exercised within the notice period. Any attempt to deny retirement after the expiry of the notice period would be legally unsustainable.
Case Details
Case Title: UCO Bank & Ors. Versus SK Shrivastava
Citation: JURISHOUR-650-SC-2026
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 375 OF 2020
Date: 07/04/2026
Read More: Complaints U/s 138 Of NI Act Can’t Be Dismissed At Pre-Trial Stage: Supreme Court
