- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1272 OF 2024 (S-R) BETWEEN: 1. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK A BODY CONSTITUTED UNDER THE BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT 1970 CIRCLE OFFICE,HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, NO.26-27, RAHEJA TOWERS, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KAVEESH SHARMA.M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRADEEP S SAWKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. P PRAKASH RAO S/O LATE P MALLAIAH SHETTY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RETIRED ON VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT AS CHIEF MANAGER, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK ANANDANAGAR BRANCH, BANGALORE 560024 AND RESIDING AT NO.6, MARUTHI LAYOUT, 4TH CROSS DASARAHALLI MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 KEMPAPURA HEBBAL, BANGALORE 560024 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.S.RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 23/11/2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.35819/2011 BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.35819/2011 WITH COSTS. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.35819/2011. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The learned Single Judge has set aside the order dated 02.09.2011 declining the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement on expiry of three month w.e.f 04.06.2011. The learned Single Judge has also directed the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 respondent-Bank to grant all pensionary and all other consequential benefits to the petitioner with interest at 6% p.a. within a period of two months from the date of the judgment. 4. The learned Single Judge while interpreting the relevant regulations i.e., the Punjab National Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995, (for short, "the Pension Regulations") particularly Regulation No.29 has held that the decision on the application for voluntary retirement must be taken before the three-month period expires. In the present case, if the bank did not pass the order within three months from the date of the notice, there would be deemed acceptance of the voluntary resignation submitted by the petitioner. It has been further held that the General Manager (HR) would be the competent authority to accept the request for voluntary retirement. However, the order rejecting the application of the petitioner for voluntary retirement has been issued by the Chief General Manager and the Circle Head. The Chief General Manager and the Circle Head would not be competent authority for accepting the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner who was working as a Chief Manager. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 5. Except for these two grounds on which the writ petition has been allowed, we do not discern any other ground taken by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition. 6. The facts are not much in dispute in the present case. The petitioner was working as a Chief Manager of Punjab National Bank, Anand Nagar Branch, Bengaluru. He has submitted an application under Regulation-29 of the Pension Regulations for relieving him from service (voluntary retirement) after expiry of three months' w.e.f 04.06.2011. The relevant part of the application reads as under "I am exercising the option for voluntary retirement under Regulation-29 of the PNB Employees' Pension Regulations, 1995. My notice be treated with effect from 04.06.2011 and I may be relieved after expiry of three months." 7. The Regulation-29 of the Pension Regulations provides as under: "29. Pension on Voluntary Retirement. (1) On or after the 1st day of November, 1993, at any time after an employee has completed twenty years of qualifying service he may, by giving notice - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 of not less than three months in writing to the appointing authority retire from service; Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is on deputation or on study leave abroad unless after having been transferred or having returned to India he has resumed charge of the post in India and has served for a period of not less than one year: Provided further that this sub- regulation shall not apply to an employee who seeks retirement from service for being absorbed permanently in an autonomous body or a public sector undertaking or company or institution or body, whether incorporated or not to which he is on deputation at the time of seeking voluntary retirement: Provided that this sub-regulation shall not apply to an employee who is deemed to have retired in accordance with clause (1) of Regulation 2. (2) The notice of voluntary retirement given under sub-regulation (1) shall require acceptance by the appointing authority; Provided that where the appointing authority does not refuse to grant the permission for retirement before the expiry of the period specified in the said notice, the retirement shall become effective from the date of expiry of the said period. (3) (a) An employee referred to in sub-regulation (1) may make a request in writing to the appointing authority to accept notice of voluntary retirement of less than three months giving reasons thereof; (b) On receipt of a request under clause (a), the appointing authority may, subject to the provisions of sub-regulation (2), consider such request for the curtailment of the period of notice of three months on merits and if it is satisfied that the curtailment of the period of notice will not cause any - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 administrative inconvenience, the appointing authority may relax the requirement of notice of three months on the condition that the employee shall not apply for commutation of a part of his pension before the expiry of the notice of three months. (4) An employee, who has elected to retire under this regulation and has given necessary notice to that effect to the appointing authority, shall be precluded from withdrawing his notice except with the specific approval of such authority; Provided that the request for such withdrawal shall be made before the intended date of his retirement. (5) The qualifying service of an employee retiring voluntarily under this regulation shall be increased by a period not exceeding five years, subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such employee shall not in any case exceed thirty-three years and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation. (6) The pension of an employee retiring under this regulation shall be based on the average emoluments as defined under clause (d) of Regulation 2 of these Regulations and the increase, not exceeding five years in his qualifying service, shall not entitle him to any notional fixation of pay for the purpose of calculating his pension." 8. A conjoint reading of Regulation-29 clause (1) and (2) would suggest that an employee does not have an absolute right to get voluntary retirement immediately upon submitting a notice. The notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 by the competent authority. However, if the appointing authority does not refuse permission for voluntary retirement before expiry of three-month notice period or more as may be prescribed in the notice, the voluntary retirement shall take effect upon expiry of three months or more as may be prescribed in the notice. The core issue to be considered is whether the petitioner's application was accepted by the competent authority before or after the expiry of three months from 04.06.2011. 10. The three-month period would be three months in the calendar year as per the General Clauses Act. If we count three months from 04.06.2011, it would expire on 03.09.2011. 11. The learned Single Judge himself has noted in the impugned judgment that the petitioner's request for voluntary retirement was refused on 02.09.2011. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the refusal for voluntary retirement of the petitioner was made by the authority before three months could get expired. 12. The next question which requires consideration is that whether the refusal was made by the competent authority - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 or by an authority not empowered to accept or refuse the request for voluntary retirement. 13. It is not in dispute that in the case of the petitioner, the General Manager (HR) would be the competent authority for accepting or refusing the request for voluntary retirement as per the Regulations. 14. On application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement with three months' notice, effective from 04.06.2011, the Assistant General Manager submitted a report to the General Manager-in-charge on 01.09.2011. The report stated that the petitioner had completed 32 years of service in the bank. However, the Circle Office, Karnataka vide letter dated 30.08.2011, informed that in view of the irregularities pointed out in the Credit Audit Report pertaining to some of the accounts, the irregularities were serious in nature, both at pre- sanction and post-sanction stage, it had been decided by the authorities to examine the staff accountability aspect in view of the Credit Audit Report. The Circle Office, therefore, had recommended that the application of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement should not be accepted for now. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 15. In the report, it was further stated that the Circle Office, Mumbai vide order dated 30.08.2011, had also informed that there was one contemplated case against the petitioner in respect of account of M/s. Navkar Ispat with book outstanding of Rs.17.44 crores as on 31.12.2010. In view thereof, the report was submitted to the General Manager for not accepting the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement from the bank service. The General Manager accepted this report on 01.09.2011. Therefore, we are of the view that the competent authority had refused the request of the petitioner for voluntary retirement before three-month period got expired from 04.06.2011. 16. Thus, on both grounds i.e., the refusal before expiry of three months from 04.06.2011, as well as the refusal by the competent authority, the impugned judgment is not correct on examination of facts. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. However, so far as the question regarding the refusal not being in accordance with the provisions of Ragulation 29 is concerned, we are of the view that an employee does not have a vested legal right for acceptance of his request for voluntary retirement after expiry - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10001-DB WA No. 1272 of 2024 of three months or more, as may be prescribed in the notice. Once he submits such a request, the request for voluntary retirement is subject to acceptance by the competent authority. The competent authority has perused the report, wherein there are serious allegations of irregularities and causing loss to the bank, and therefore, the competent authority has not acceded to the request of the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement within three months from 04.06.2011. 17. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1