Order : (FARJAND ALI, J.) GRIEVANCE/PRAYER 1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner being aggrieved by the actions of the respondents for not granting him the voluntary retirement and has also not provided the retirement and consequential benefits as provided under State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Employees) Pension Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as “service regulations, 1979”). FACTS OF THE CASE 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed under the respondent Bank on the post of Clerk on 8th September 1969. Several promotions were accorded to the petitioner because of his unblemished service record, including after completing 25 years of service in the year 1994. 2.1 An order dated 28th September 1994 was issued by the respondent Bank laying down provisions regarding “voluntary retirement.” It was issued under Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, 1979. It is provided therein that an officer who has completed 25 years of service may be permitted to retire from the Bank’s service, subject to giving 3 months' notice in writing. 2.2 An application dated 30th April 2002 was submitted by the petitioner through the proper channel seeking voluntary retirement from the respondent Bank’s services. By this, he gave 3 months' notice to the Bank, and the period of 3 months was to expire on 31st July 2002. The application was forwarded to the concerned authority on 30th April 2002. A letter dated 1st May 2002 was received by the petitioner from the AGM, acknowledging receipt of the application/notice of the petitioner dated 30th April 2002 for seeking voluntary retirement. On 15th June 2002, the petitioner was relieved from his duties, and until 31st July 2002, he did not receive any communication from the competent authority, i.e., the Executive Committee, rejecting his application for voluntary retirement. He also did not receive any communication from the authority under the Service Regulations of 1979 initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. In view of the statutory provisions contained under the proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, the petitioner ceased to be in the Bank’s service. In this manner, the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank’s service with effect from 31st July 2002 upon expiry of the notice period. In view of the statutory provisions contained under the proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, the petitioner ceased to be in the Bank’s service. In this manner, the petitioner was deemed to have voluntarily retired from the Bank’s service with effect from 31st July 2002 upon expiry of the notice period. 2.3 On 17th July 2002, he was served with a letter defeating his claim for voluntary retirement as well as all his consequential retirement benefits and seeking his explanation with respect to some alleged irregularities. It was not a charge sheet issued under the provisions of the Service Regulations of 1979 but a letter merely calling for an explanation from the petitioner. Upon receiving the letter, he replied refuting the allegations leveled against him. On 29th July 2002, an impugned order was issued by the CM, who was officiating as AGM, whereby the request of the petitioner for seeking voluntary retirement was declined. As per the regulation, only the ‘competent authority’ can issue the communication of acceptance or rejection of the request for voluntary retirement. 2.4 A representation was submitted by the petitioner to the Executive Committee of the Bank for redressal of his grievance with respect to his application for seeking voluntary retirement. Another representation was made on 3rd August 2002 to the AGM of the Bank. This representation letter was also addressed to the Senior Vice President, Bank of Punjab, whereby a request was made for an extension of the period for joining his duties by 31 days. However, he was not informed about the extension of the period for joining duty. Therefore, he had no alternative except to join duty with the Bank of Punjab, in terms of the appointment order dated 3rd May 2002 issued to him by the Bank of Punjab. An appeal was also submitted by him to the Executive Committee on 10th August 2002, but nothing was done by the competent authority. A further reminder was also sent on 12th August 2002 but to no avail. Instead of granting voluntary retirement, the AGM issued letters asking for his explanation, which the petitioner replied to on 21st August 2002. Furthermore, many other letters and representations were made by the petitioner to the competent authority and the AGM asking for payment of retirement benefits consequent to his voluntary retirement, but no reply was given to his grievance. Instead of granting voluntary retirement, the AGM issued letters asking for his explanation, which the petitioner replied to on 21st August 2002. Furthermore, many other letters and representations were made by the petitioner to the competent authority and the AGM asking for payment of retirement benefits consequent to his voluntary retirement, but no reply was given to his grievance. 2.5 A disciplinary inquiry was initiated against the petitioner by issuing the charge sheet dated 5th December 2002, which was received by him on 18th December 2002. Therefore, for the first time, an inquiry against the petitioner was initiated on this day, i.e., when the petitioner was no longer in the service of the respondent Bank. In fact, the petitioner ceased to be in the Bank’s service on 31st July 2002 by operation of law or by virtue of the second proviso to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations of 1979. A reply to the charges was submitted by the petitioner on 28th December 2002, whereby he refuted the allegations leveled against him. 2.6 The petitioner filed Civil Suit No. 18/2003 on 20th July 2003 in the court of Additional District Judge No. 2, Sriganganagar, wherein an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC was decided on 24th April 2004, declining the temporary injunction to the petitioner, and was withdrawn. 2.7 The petitioner is making a challenge against the provisions of regulation 19 as well as provisions contemplated under order Annexure P/1 with regards to voluntary retirement being in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER 3. The counsel for the petitioner re-iterated the facts of the case and mentioned the grounds for the same. 4. A reply has been filed by the counsel for the respondents refuting the arguments presented by the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner’s claim for voluntary retirement (VRS) lacks merit as his application was never accepted and mere forwarding of the application did not establish any intent of acceptance, nor did it preclude pending or future disciplinary action. It is further contended that at the time of his request, the petitioner was already involved in serious financial irregularities, including improper loan disbursements. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and a charge sheet was served on 17.07.2002. It is further contended that at the time of his request, the petitioner was already involved in serious financial irregularities, including improper loan disbursements. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and a charge sheet was served on 17.07.2002. Further, it is stated that his VRS application was duly rejected on 29.07.2002, a decision later ratified by the Executive Committee on 08.08.2002. Despite being fully aware of the rejection, the petitioner wrongfully assumed retirement and joined another bank on 03.08.2002. His attempt to evade disciplinary proceedings and subsequent punishment is evident. The writ petition is merely an afterthought to escape liability. It is contended that all actions were taken fairly and in accordance with regulations, the petition should be dismissed in the interest of justice. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the material placed on record. 6. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is evident that the petitioner applied for voluntary retirement from the respondent bank, duly providing three months prior notice, for which he also received an acknowledgment of receipt. A crucial point to consider is that the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 15th June 2002—fifteen days before his actual voluntary retirement date—clearly indicating that the bank was aware of his request for voluntary retirement. Furthermore, until 30th July 2002, the petitioner did not receive any communication from the competent authority, i.e., the Executive Committee, regarding the rejection of his VRS application. Additionally, no intimation was given to him about any disciplinary proceedings being initiated against him. This delay and lack of communication demonstrate that the bank neither promptly rejected his application nor informed him within the stipulated time, leading the petitioner to reasonably assume that his request for voluntary retirement had been accepted. 7. Now, turning to Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, 1979, which governs the age of retirement, it is pertinent to reproduce the relevant provision for reference:- “19. Age of retirement 19 (1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attainingthe age of fifty eight years or upon the completion of thirty years. whichever occurs first. Provided that the competent authority may. at its discretion. Age of retirement 19 (1) An officer shall retire from the service of the Bank on attainingthe age of fifty eight years or upon the completion of thirty years. whichever occurs first. Provided that the competent authority may. at its discretion. extend the period of service of an officer who has attained the age of fifty eight years or has completed thirty years service as the case may be, should such extension be deemed desirable in the interest of the Bank. Provided further that an officer who had joined the service of the Bank either as an officer or otherwise on or after the 19th July 1969 and attained the age of 58 years, shall not be granted any further extension in service. (effective from 20th December 1984) Provided further that an officer may, at the discretion of the Executive Committee be retired from the Bank's service after he has attained 50 years of age or has completed 25 years* service as the case may be, by giving him three months' notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof. Provided further that an officer who has completed 25 years' service may be permitted by the Executive Committee to retire from the Banks service, subject to his giving three months" notice in writing or pay in lieu thereof unless this requirement is wholly or partly waived.” A bare perusal of the relevant clause of the regulation clearly stipulates that an officer who has completed 25 years of service in the bank may retire, provided that the Executive Committee grants permission, subject to a three-month notice in writing or payment in lieu thereof. In this case, the petitioner duly applied for voluntary retirement in accordance with the prescribed procedure but did not receive any communication regarding the status of his application. As a result, he reasonably deemed his retirement as accepted. Notably, his notice period was set to expire on 30th July 2002, yet his request was rejected by the GM only on 29th July 2002—just a day before its expiry and it also states that the Executive Committee has to accord its post facto approval for denial of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. Notably, his notice period was set to expire on 30th July 2002, yet his request was rejected by the GM only on 29th July 2002—just a day before its expiry and it also states that the Executive Committee has to accord its post facto approval for denial of the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement. This reflects the bank’s intent to deny the petitioner’s voluntary retirement despite his strict adherence to the procedural requirements, including timely submission of notices, so this cannot be allowed as the prayer cannot be kept pending till the last day of his application of notice to intimate the incumbent that you have committed misconduct and your voluntary retirement has been canceled. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner was relieved of his duties on 15th June 2002, a full fifteen days before the expiration of his notice period, so, if, the bank wanted to reject the application of voluntary retirement then why they relieved the petitioner 15 days prior to his expiration of his notice period. This clearly indicates that the bank was well aware of his voluntary retirement request and, at that time, appeared to acknowledge it. However, despite this, the bank ultimately chose to reject his application at the last moment, raising serious concerns about its intent and fairness in handling the matter. 8. This Court is of the view that, as per Regulation 19(1) of the Service Regulations, only the competent authority has the power to accept or reject a voluntary retirement application. In this case, the designated competent authority was the Executive Committee. However, contrary to the established procedure, the rejection of the petitioner’s voluntary retirement request was issued by the General Manager, who was officiating as the Assistant General Manager—an individual who lacked the necessary authority to make such a decision and without the approval of the competent authority, it shall be deemed not appropriate or justifiable. This procedural irregularity raises serious concerns about the validity of the rejection and the manner in which the petitioner’s request was handled. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the process followed by the bank in this matter is legally flawed. An employee who has duly completed the required service period cannot be left in a state of uncertainty while awaiting a decision on his voluntary retirement application from the competent authority. 9. This Court is of the opinion that the process followed by the bank in this matter is legally flawed. An employee who has duly completed the required service period cannot be left in a state of uncertainty while awaiting a decision on his voluntary retirement application from the competent authority. Such undue delay and lack of clarity are unjust and procedurally improper. Furthermore, the subsequent charges of misconduct brought against the petitioner under Regulation 50 of the Service Regulations, 1979, are also legally unsustainable and in the given circumstances, these charges should be quashed, as they appear to be an afterthought rather than a legitimate course of action. 10. A coordinate bench of this Court addressed similar issues in the case of Bhanwar Lal Nagga v. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5997/2015) decided on 17.10.2022 . In its judgment, the Court held that the decision to grant permission for voluntary retirement must be made by the appointing authority. Furthermore, it was clarified that voluntary retirement takes effect automatically upon the expiration of the notice period, provided the employee has duly complied with all procedural requirements. This ruling reinforces the principle that an employee cannot be left in uncertainty regarding their retirement status due to delays or inaction on the part of the appointing authority. 11. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed in the following terms:- a) The petitioner shall be considered to be retired from the respondent bank service by virtue of regulation 19 of the Service Regulations, 1979 with effect from 31.07.2002. b) The impugned orders dated 29.07.2002, rejecting the petitioners application as well as order dated 05.12.2002 issuing the charge-sheet to the petitioner are hereby quashed and set aside. c) The respondent is directed to provide all retirement and pensioner benefits to the petitioner as provided under Pension regulations of 1995 treating petitioner to have voluntarily retired with effect from 31.07.2002 in accordance with the Service Regulations, 1979. 12. The stay petition stands disposed of.