S. N. BHATTACHAKJEE, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of a common judgment dated August 26, 1999 passed by a single Judge of this Court allowing the two writ applications filed by the respondent being marked W. P. No. 11167 (W) of 1997 and W. P. No. 23847 (W) of 1997. ( 2 ) THE respondent, while posted as Manager of Birpara Branch under the appellant No. 1, exercised option for voluntary retirement giving 90 days' notice in writing with effect from May 14, 1996 on completion of 31 and half years of service under Service Regulations. His application to the General Manager (Personnel) expressed that he would be retiring on completion of 90 days which period was due to expire on August 12, 1996. On September 8, 1996 the Chief Officer (Pension) asked the petitioner to make the representation for voluntary retirement through the Regional Manager at Siliguri. On June 14, 1996 the respondent forwarded the said application dated May 14, 1996 through the Regional Manager. On getting no response from the Competent Authority the petitioner handed over charge on August 16, 1996 with information to the Regional Manager. On August 22, 1996 the respondent received the order of the Authority dated August 13, 1996 along with a forwarding letter dated August 17, 1996 refusing to accept the notice of voluntary retirement. By a letter dated August 26, 1996 to Chief Officer of the UBI the respondent intimated that the notice of retirement having taken effect he should be allowed to commute his pension. The appellants refused to pay pension to the respondent and the first writ petition was filed with a prayer for cancelling the letter of refusal issued by the appellants as also for giving directions to the appellants to release Provident Fund and Gratuity. Subsequently, on September 16, 1997 the Bank Authorities served a chargesheet on the respondent for his unauthorised absence since August 16, 1996 and the respondent filed the second writ petition for quashing the disciplinary proceedings. Subsequently, on September 16, 1997 the Bank Authorities served a chargesheet on the respondent for his unauthorised absence since August 16, 1996 and the respondent filed the second writ petition for quashing the disciplinary proceedings. ( 3 ) THE appellant Bank Authorities in the affidavit in-opposition contended that on February 24, 1996 the letter of the Regional Manager of Bank was sent to the writ petitioner asking him to explain the irregularities in the Tea Nursery A/c. at Maskalai Bari Branch which was indicative of the fact that a disciplinary proceeding was under contemplation against the writ petitioner, that under statutory regulation the notice of voluntary retirement requires the acceptance of the Authorities, that before the expiry of the period of notice, a telegram was sent on August 12, 1996 refusing to accept the voluntary retirement to the Regional Manager who received it on August 13, 1996 and the Deputy General Manager communicated to the petitioner on August 13, 1996 over telephone about the decision of the Authorities, that the notice of retirement direct to the Competent Authority being irregular was required to be routed through the Regional Manager and the writ petitioner complied with the requirement later on June 14, 1996 and as such the decision of refusal was communicated within time and lastly, the notice of 90 days was invalid for being less than three calender months. ( 4 ) THE learned trial Judge rejected all the contentions of the appellants and allowed the writ petitions by his judgment dated August 26, 1999 which has been impugned before us. ( 5 ) IT has been contended by Mr. Basu appearing for the appellants that the respondent's service condition herein is governed not only by Rule 29 (2) of United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 but also by Regulation 20 (3) (i) and (ii) of United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and Rule 28b of the Administrative Instructions which should be read together. Basu appearing for the appellants that the respondent's service condition herein is governed not only by Rule 29 (2) of United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 but also by Regulation 20 (3) (i) and (ii) of United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 and Rule 28b of the Administrative Instructions which should be read together. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that the Service Regulation 20 Sub-regulation (3) (i) and (ii) are not applicable to the instant case as no disciplinary proceedings commenced against the petitioner until expiry of August 12, 1996 without appreciating the fact that admittedly a show-cause notice was issued on February 24, 1996 calling upon the writ petitioner to explain certain allegations clearly indicating that a disciplinary proceeding was under contemplation of the authorities within the meaning of Regulation 20 (3) (ii) of the United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. The learned counsel further argued that in terms of Service Regulation 20 (3) (i) an officer against whom disciplinary proceedings are pending shall not leave/discontinue/resign from his service in the Bank without the prior approval in writing of the Competent Authority and any notice of resignation given by such officer before or during the disciplinary proceedings shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority. ( 6 ) THUS, it has been argued by Mr. Basu that the appellants were within their rights to refuse to accept the notice of voluntary retirement and as such it cannot be said that the writ petitioner's voluntary retirement has taken effect. ( 7 ) THE next contention of Mr. Basu is that Rule 29 (1) and (2) of Pension Regulation with its proviso cannot be availed of by the writ petitioner as the said refusal was communicated before the date of the expiry of the notice. The Competent Authority by its letter dated March 12, 1996 communicated the refusal to the Regional Manager who informed the writ petitioner over telephone on August 13, 1996. The Competent Authority by its letter dated March 12, 1996 communicated the refusal to the Regional Manager who informed the writ petitioner over telephone on August 13, 1996. Moreover Rule 29 (1) and (2) (proviso) of the Pension Regulation does not require that the refusal has to be communicated to the incumbent before expiry of the period but what is contemplated is that it is to be refused within that period and thus if the refusal is made within three months then actual communication to the incumbent on a later date does not nullify the action taken within the period. The next contention of Mr. Basu is that the notice of 90 days is defective as the Rule requires notice of three calender months and not a notice of 90 days which period is less than the period covered by three calender months. It is further argued that the notice through Regional Officer having been sent on June 14, 1996, the date of voluntary retirement should take effect from September 13, 1996 within which the refusal was communicated to the writ petitioner. ( 8 ) BEFORE discussing the points raised by Mr. Basu it would be expedient to set out relevant Regulations 20 (3) (i) and (ii), Rule 28-B of the Administrative Instructions and Rule 29 (1) and (2) of the Pension Rule. "regulation 20 (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. ""regulation 20 (3) (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. "rule 28-B of the said Administrative Instruction to United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 reads as follows:. "rule 28-B of the said Administrative Instruction to United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 reads as follows:. '"28-B: In case of an officer-employee against whom disciplinary proceedings is contemplated or is pending or a case in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, no such retirement will have effect unless it is accepted in writing by Competent Authority and such acceptance is communicated to him. "[this rule has been replaced by Rule 29 of UBI (Employees) Pension Regulation, 1995. ]"rule 29 (1): On or after the first day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed 20 years of qualifying service he may by giving notice of not less than three months in writing to the Appointing Authority retire from service. ""rule 29 (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. " ( 9 ) THE most vital point in this case is to consider whether the refusal of the Bank Authorities to accept the notice of voluntary retirement is valid in the circumstances of this case. ( 10 ) THE refusal on the ground of the notice not being for three calender months or not being routed through proper channel has not been contemplated either under the Service Regulations, 1979 or in the Pension Regulations, 1995. The authorities never expressed at any stage prior to the writ proceedings that the notice of 90 days for voluntary retirement fell short of the period of three calender months by one day. According to them, it should be August 13, 1996 instead of August 12, 1996. The authorities of such a prestigious institution could very well inform the respondent that the notice should be for three calender months instead of 90 days and the writ petitioner in that case could very well issue a fresh notice. For that purpose sending a signal of refusal on the last date of expiry of the notice by telegram or phone message and thereby raising a dispute affecting the Civil status of an officer would not have been necessary. For that purpose sending a signal of refusal on the last date of expiry of the notice by telegram or phone message and thereby raising a dispute affecting the Civil status of an officer would not have been necessary. Similarly, the reason that the notice of voluntary retirement was not routed through Regional Manager cannot also be valid ground for refusal to accept the notice. The Rules clearly state that such notice has to be submitted to the Competent Authority and that was done. It is, therefore, not a statutory requirement that a notice should be routed through proper channel, it may be at best an administrative expediency. That direction was also complied with, the authorities took more than 3 weeks to send the direction on June 8, 1996. The appellants authorities, therefore, cannot be permitted to say that the effective notice of retirement was received on June 14, 1996 instead of May 14, 1996 only to postpone the running of the period of three months so as to bring the notice of refusal within the expiry date. The writ petitioner was never asked by the bank authorities to send notice afresh through Regional Manager nor did they return the notice for being unacceptable on that score. In that case the writ petitioner would have atleast got an opportunity to submit a fresh notice. On the other hand, the authorities acted upon the notice dated May 14, 1996 as will appear from the telegram dated August 12, 1996. The argument that the notice of voluntary retirement suffers from inherent infirmities on these two scores are not, therefore, acceptable. ( 11 ) IT is significant to note that the ground for refusal as made out in the affidavit-in-opposition and as also in the Memo Appeal was that the writ petitioner committed irregularities for which clarification was sought for from him by a letter dated February 24, 1996. It has been urged that the decision to take voluntary retirement was a device to escape from disciplinary proceedings. Annexure 'b' to the affidavit-in-opposition is the letter dated February 24, 1996 sent by Regional Manager to the writ petitioner calling upon him to show the reason for committing such irregularities in violation of the terms of sanction stipulated by the office. Annexure 'b' to the affidavit-in-opposition is the letter dated February 24, 1996 sent by Regional Manager to the writ petitioner calling upon him to show the reason for committing such irregularities in violation of the terms of sanction stipulated by the office. The alleged irregularities related to disbursement of loans in respect of Tea Nursery A/c. at Maskali Ban Branch wherein the writ petitioner was the Manager. The explanation was given by the writ petitioner by his letter dated June 10, 1996. Thereafter nothing followed. No follow-up action was taken calling upon the writ petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him. The disciplinary action 'in contemplation' is not an act of mental exercise but an expression of some positive decision to be taken by the authorities on being prima facie satisfied that the explanation offered been pleaded or shown to the Court. The Authority did not call upon the writ petitioner to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him till the date of expiry of the notice of retirement. Therefore, Rule 28-B of the Administrative Instruction or Sub-regulation 3 (i) and (ii) of Service Regulation 20 have no application in this case as no disciplinary proceedings within the meaning of those provisions were pending or under contemplation against the writ petitioner. ( 12 ) ONCE it is held that no departmental proceedings was pending nor was under contemplation the respondent was free to leave the service on giving three months' notice and the appellants-authorities were duty bound to accept the notice of voluntary retirement as required under the Rule 29 (1) of the Pension Regulations, 1995. The word 'refusal' in the proviso to Rule 29 (2) must be a refusal on the grounds mentioned in the relevant provision of Service Regulation simply because such refusal would otherwise be de hors the Rules, arbitrary and beyond the jurisdiction of the Statutory Authorities. The Statutory Authorities cannot be permitted to act beyond the four corners of the Statute (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Nurriddin Mallick and Ors. ). Such refusal, therefore, cannot act as a hindrance to the voluntary retirement being effective for the purpose of granting pension and other retiral benefits. The Statutory Authorities cannot be permitted to act beyond the four corners of the Statute (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Nurriddin Mallick and Ors. ). Such refusal, therefore, cannot act as a hindrance to the voluntary retirement being effective for the purpose of granting pension and other retiral benefits. ( 13 ) SEVERAL decisions like State of Haryana v. S. K. Singhal, Union of India v. Sayed Muzaffar Mir, Dinesh Chandra Sangma v. State of Assam, and also Dr. Baljit Singh 's case were cited from the Bar. In the State of Haryana v. S. K. Singhal (supra) the Apex Court discussed all the relevant decisions and laid down the law as follow:"thus, from the aforesaid three decisions it is clear that if the right to voluntary retirement is conferred in absolute terms as in Dinesh Chandra Sangama 's case (supra) by the relevant rules and there is no provision in Rules to withold 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's case, and as in Syed Muzaffar Mir's case (supra), the concerned authority is empowered to withhold permission to retire if certain conditions exist, viz. in case the employee is under suspension or in case a departmental inquiry is pending or is contemplated, the mere pendency of the suspension or departmental inquiry or its contemplation does not result in the notice for voluntary retirement not coming into effect on expiry of the period specified. What is further needed is that the concerned authority must pass a positive order withholding permission to retire and must also communicate the same to the employee as stated in B. J. Shelat 's case (supra) and in Sayed Muzaffar Mir's case (supra) 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. In the case before us Sub-clause (1) of Rule 5. 32 B contemplates a 'notice to retire' and not a request seeking permission to retire. The further 'request' comtemplated by the sub-section is only for seeking exemption from the 3 months period. In the case before us Sub-clause (1) of Rule 5. 32 B contemplates a 'notice to retire' and not a request seeking permission to retire. The further 'request' comtemplated by the sub-section is only for seeking exemption from the 3 months period. The proviso to Sub-clause (2) makes a positive provision that "where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in Sub-rule (1), the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. The case before us stands on a stronger footing than Dinesh Chandra Sangma's case (supra) so far as the employee is concerned. As already stated Rule 2. 2 of Punjab Civil Service Rules Vol. II only deals with a situation of withholding or withdrawing pension to a person who has already retired. " ( 14 ) IN the instant case before us there is no provision for seeking permission to retire and the Officer may retire if no departmental proceeding is pending against him. The appellant's letter of refusal to accept the notice of voluntary retirement being without any basis is, therefore, illegal and cannot be inhibitory to the right of getting pension and other retiral benefits under the provisions of Pension Regulations, 1995. ( 15 ) THE dispute over the communication of the refusal by telephonic message being a disputed question of fact we do not intend to go into it. In view of our finding above such consideration is not necessary either. The communication of refusal even before the expiry of the period of the notice is, therefore, of no consequence. ( 16 ) ADMITTEDLY, the respondent delivered charge on August 16, 1996 much later than the period of three calender months. There cannot be any valid ground for denying his right to get the pension and other retiral benefits as prayed for. ( 17 ) THE appeals, therefore, must fail and accordingly the same are dismissed. The judgment under appeal is hereby upheld. There will be no order as to costs in these appeals. Ruma Pal, J. ( 18 ) THE facts of the case have been stated in the judgment of my learned brother. While concurring with the reasoning expressed and conclusion arrived at, I would like to emphasise and clarify certain facts of the matter. There will be no order as to costs in these appeals. Ruma Pal, J. ( 18 ) THE facts of the case have been stated in the judgment of my learned brother. While concurring with the reasoning expressed and conclusion arrived at, I would like to emphasise and clarify certain facts of the matter. ( 19 ) THE parties proceeded on the basis that the relevant provisions relating to voluntary retirement are contained in the United Bank of India (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 (referred to as the Pension Regulations ). In my opinion, the substantive law on voluntary retirement is contained in the United Bank of India (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 (referred to as the Service Regulations) and not in the Pension Regulations. ( 20 ) THE Service Regulations have been framed in exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 read with Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (referred to as the Act ). Section 19 of the Act provides for the power of the Board of Directors, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette to make regulations in respect of, inter alia, "the conditions or limitations subject to which the corresponding new bank may appoint advisers, officers or other employees and fix their remuneration and other terms and conditions of service. " Section 12 (2) provides for every officer and employee of the erstwhile banks to hold office in the corresponding new bank on the same terms and conditions until his employment in the corresponding bank is terminated or until his remuneration or the terms or conditions of service are duly altered by the corresponding new bank. The Service Regulations contain such alteration. ( 21 ) GUIDELINES have been issued by the Government from time to time within the meaning of Regulation 3 (h) of the Service Regulations. These guidelines as well as other decisions taken by the Board of Directors, in exercise of the powers vested by various provisions of Service Regulations, have been included in a compendium of Administrative Instructions. The foreword to the Administrative Instructions states that they are "in clarification of and supplementary to" the Service Regulations and "shall be read along with the Regulations. The foreword to the Administrative Instructions states that they are "in clarification of and supplementary to" the Service Regulations and "shall be read along with the Regulations. " ( 22 ) THE Pension Regulations, on the other hand, have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 19 (2) (f) of the Act which provides for the making of Regulations by the Board of Directors for "the establishment and maintenance of superannuation, pension, provident or other funds for the benefit of officers or other employees of the corresponding new bank or of the dependents of such officers or other employees and the granting of superannuation, allowances, annuities and pensions payable out of such funds. " The Pension Regulations (PR) provide, inter alia, for the setting up of the Pension Fund, the qualifying service for pension, the classes of pension, the rate of pension, family pension and commutation. PR 29 which has been referred to by the parties as governing the right of voluntary retirement is contained in Chapter V which deals with classes of pension. PR 29 itself bears the heading "pension on Voluntary Retirement". It appears to me that PR 29 in laying down the preconditions for grant of pension on voluntary retirement, speaks of the voluntary retirement which is acceptable for the purpose. Thus theoretically speaking a person who may have validly retired voluntarily for the purpose of SR 20 (2) may yet not be entitled to pension under PR 29. Ultimately, however there is no distinction in the provisions of PR 29 read with PR 46, PR 47 and SR 20 (2) and (3 ). ( 23 ) THE issues raised will therefore have to be determined according to the provisions in the Service and not the Pension Regulations. The submission of the respondent that the Pension Regulation overrides the Administrative Instruction is, in the circumstances, incorrect. Besides, the submission is based merely upon the foreword to the Pension Regulations which states "the present Regulations substitutes all our Regulations and instructions issued earlier in this regard. " The Administrative Instructions which are issued in clarification of the Service Regulations cannot be deemed to have been issued "in this regard". There is also nothing in the Pension Regulations themselves which speaks of the repeal of the earlier circulars and the foreword to the Pension Regulations cannot affect any such repeal or supersession. " The Administrative Instructions which are issued in clarification of the Service Regulations cannot be deemed to have been issued "in this regard". There is also nothing in the Pension Regulations themselves which speaks of the repeal of the earlier circulars and the foreword to the Pension Regulations cannot affect any such repeal or supersession. ( 24 ) SERVICE Regulations SR 20 (2) provides that 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. These three situations would, in my view, cover a case of voluntary retirement. SR 20 (2) goes on to state that the period of notice required shall be three months and shall be submitted to the Competent Authority as prescribed in the Service Regulations. The Competent Authority has the power to reduce the period of three months or remit the requirement of notice altogether. ( 25 ) THIS Regulation makes it clear that subject to the officer giving a notice in writing of three months he may unilaterally leave his service with the appellant bank. It does not require any acceptance by the Competent Authority. Upon the end of the period, the relationship between the officer and the appellant is automatically severed. The only exception to this right of unilateral discontinuance is specified in SR 20 (3 ). This provides that when disciplinary proceedings are pending, the notice shall not take effect unless it is accepted by the Competent Authority. Since the notice of voluntary retirement becomes effective after the notice period, it follows that in order to render the notice ineffective the refusal or non-acceptance must be within that period. ( 26 ) THE Service Regulations expressly state that the refusal can be made only if disciplinary proceedings are pending. It has been clarified in SR 20 (3) (ii) that:"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. " ( 27 ) THEREFORE, the absolute right to voluntarily retire provided under SR 20 (2) is curtailed only when (i) disciplinary proceedings are in fact pending; or (ii) disciplinary proceedings are deemed to be pending by the officer being placed under suspension; or being issued a show cause notice why disciplinary proceedings should not be instituted against him. In the absence of either of these conditions, the right of voluntary retirement is absolute. ( 28 ) IN the present case disciplinary proceedings were not actually nor could be deemed to be pending against the respondent. The respondent had neither been placed under suspension, nor can the letter dated February 24, 1996 asking for an explanation of certain accounts be construed as a show cause notice within SR 20 (3) at all. The letter does not contain a whisper of any disciplinary action at all. ( 29 ) THE reliance on paragraph 28-B of the Administrative Instructions by the appellant is misplaced. Paragraph 28 reads:"in case of an officer-employee against whom disciplinary proceedings is contemplated or is pending or a case in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation, enquiry or trial, no such retirement will have effect unless it is accepted in writing by the Competent Authority and such acceptance is communicated to him. " ( 30 ) THE Administrative Instructions being clarificatory of the Service Regulations cannot add to or alter or modify them. The word "contemplate", therefore, must be' interpreted to mean a situation covered by SR 20 (3) (ii) quoted earlier. ( 31 ) THUS in the absence of any of the conditions mentioned in SR 20 (3), the respondent was, under SR 20 (2), entitled to voluntarily retire and he in fact retired at the end of the notice period. ( 32 ) THE other aspect of the matter which I would like to emphasise is the date, on which the voluntary retirement would take effect. It is imperative that there is no ambiguity as to the date, given the fact that with reference to it an officer's status is determined. In the context of such serious repercussions it must be held that the appellant by not questioning the effective date of retirement stated by the respondent in his notice in any correspondence is precluded from questioning the date subsequent to such date. In the context of such serious repercussions it must be held that the appellant by not questioning the effective date of retirement stated by the respondent in his notice in any correspondence is precluded from questioning the date subsequent to such date. The silence of the appellant on this issue till after the date mentioned by the respondent in his notice necessarily implied acquiescence. It also meant that the respondent could act on the basis of the notice which he did. He stopped attending office from the date stated in his notice. The appellant cannot now be heard to say that the date mentioned in the notice was incorrect. ( 33 ) IN concurrence with the view expressed by my learned brother and for the reasons stated earlier, this appeal must be dismissed.