Valmiki J Mehta, J. - (1.)THIS writ petition is filed by the petitioner -Sh. Arjun Chawla praying for quashing of the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 18.8.2000 whereby the petitioner was inflicted the punishment of removal from service. On behalf of petitioner, neither Enquiry Report nor the order of the Disciplinary Authority is challenged but what is argued is that since departmental proceedings cannot be initiated after deemed voluntary retirement of the petitioner, hence entire departmental proceedings have to be quashed for this sole reason. Reliance is placed upon the Regulation 20(3)(i) and 20(3)(ii) of the Punjab National Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 to argue that disciplinary proceedings can be said to be pending only if notice has been issued to the employee for showing cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him. Alongwith Regulations 20(3)(i) and (ii) reliance is also placed upon Pension Regulations 29(2) of the respondent which provides for deemed retirement if the application made for voluntary retirement is not refused before expiry of three months period specified in the notice.
(2.)ON behalf of the respondent, it is argued that the present case would not be covered under Regulation 20(3) of the service regulations inasmuch as on joint reading of Regulation 20(3)(i) with Regulation 29(2) it is found that there is required a specific prior approval in writing of the competent authority in cases which are covered under the Pension Regulation 29(2), and in terms of which regulation it is required that the notice of voluntary retirement requires acceptance, and a mere silence will not do. It is further argued that the expression 'refuse' used in proviso to Regulation 29(2) only means that in a particular language the employer has informed the employee that the voluntary retirement is not accepted, and, it is not the requirement that the communication to an employee must specifically use the expression 'acceptance' in case of acceptance and 'refuse' in case of refusal. In order to appreciate the respective arguments, it is necessary to reproduce the relevant regulations and which read as under: -
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.

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.

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.

(3.)BEFORE interpretation of aforesaid regulations, certain admitted facts have to be referred to. Petitioner's application for voluntary retirement is dated 15.4.1998. Respondent gave its response vide communication dated 4.5.1998 before the three months period that the application for voluntary retirement is kept pending by referring to the requirement of specific acceptance for effecting voluntary retirement. Petitioner after his inter departmental transfer did not join the services of the bank from 3.1.1998 except joining for one day on 11.4.1998, and on which date he is said to have told the bank that he will be submitting his application for sick leave and thereafter instead submitted his application for voluntary retirement on 15.4.1998. Petitioner thus effectively from 3.1.1998 did not join the services of the respondent including after receipt of the communication dated 4.5.1998 or the show cause notice issued by the bank dated 18.9.1998 for initiation of the departmental enquiry on account of petitioner having not joined the services of the bank in spite of repeated notices.