Judgment:
:
1. : R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BEN CH ON THE15T H DAY OF MARCH2018BEFORE THE H ON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K .N . PHA NEENDRA WRIT PETITION N O.86102/ 2013 (S- RES) …PETITIONE R BETWEEN : BASAVARAJ S/O VE ERAPPA S H ALAWADI, AGE : ABOUT49Y EARS, OCC: NIL, R/ O184, SIDHALINGA NA GA R, GADAG. (BY SRI ANANT P.SAVADI, ADV OCAT E) AND:
1. THE N .W.K .R.T .C., REPT. BY DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER , GADAG DIVISI ON, GADAG.
2. THE MANAGING DI RECTOR , N.W.K .R .T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE , GOKUL R OAD, HUBLI .
3. THE CHI EF LAW OFFICER, N.W.K .R .T.C., CENTRAL OFFICE , GOKUL R OAD, HUBLI . (BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR S.BADAWADA GI, ADVOCAT E) …RESPONDENTS :
2. : THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UND ER ARTICLES226& 227 OF TH E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYIN G TO ISSUE A WRI T OR ANY OTHE R
ORDERIN TH E NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORAR I QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT A T ANNEXURE- P DATED0912.2013 INFORMING THE PETITIONER T HAT THE ORDE R PASSED BY T HE D IVISIONAL CONTR OLLER ACCE PTING RESIGNATION BE ARING NO.VAAKA RASAA: KENKA:HU: SHISTU:1114 DA TED0912.2013 ISSUED BY TH E CHIEF LAW OFFICER AND FURTHER PRAYED TO ISSUE A WRIT OR ANY OTHER
ORDERIN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUA SHING THE ORD E R OF ACCEPTANCE OF RESIGNATION PASSED BY THE DIVISION AL CONTROLLER DA TED0101.2013 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J BEARING NO.VAAKARASAA/GAVI /SIBBANDI/C-3/ 08/13 DATED0101.2013 AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HE ARING ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, TH E COURT MADE TH E FOLLOWING: O RD E R The petitioner being aggrieved by the orders passed by the 1 s t respondent dated 01.01.2013 in accepting the resignation of the petitioner and :
3. : removing him from services and also the order of the Appellate Authority i.e., the 3 r d respondent dated 09.12.2013 as per Annexure P in confirming the order of the 1 s t respondent in accepting the resignation of the petitioner.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the respondents. I have also carefully perused the records.
3. The factual aspects of the matter discloses that, the petitioner was working as a conductor No.1300 under the respondents in Gadag Depot. It appears, he has made several allegations against some of the officials of the respondent No.1, with regard to corruption etc. It appears no appropriate actions have been taken against such alleged corrupt officials. On the other hand, according to him he was being humiliated by :
4. : higher officers of him in the department and due to which reason he was virtually frustrated within the department and he was forced to give resignation as per Annexure-E (resignation letter) dated 01.01.2013.
4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the circular dated 05.10.1990 as per Annexure-F discloses, as to what procedure that should be followed before accepting the resignation and also the remedy available for withdrawal of the resignation etc. He has also relied upon another circular dated 31.12.2010 which also indicate as to what procedure that ought to have been followed by the Resignation Accepting Authority or the Resignation Forwarding Authority before forwarding or accepting the resignation. :
5. :
5. He further contended that, the respondents have not followed the procedure as per the relevant circulars. Having come to know about such irregularities and having realized his misconceived frustration in resigning the job, he made an application for withdrawal of his resignation vide letter dated 09.01.2013 as per Annexure-K. Having received the same, the 1 s t respondent has given an endorsement that his application cannot be entertained as his resignation was already accepted. On the other hand, it is said in the endorsement that, the petitioner is entitled to file an appeal before the Competent Authority. The endorsement dated 02.12.2013 as per Annexure-O, was issued on the ground that, the resignation was already accepted on 01.01.2013 itself as per Annexure-J.
6. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has also preferred an appeal before the :
6. :
3. r d respondent. On 09.12.2013, the said appeal was dismissed, thereafter an endorsement was issued. Without even going into the merits of the case but, by merely saying that according to the Circular No.793(B), the resignation has to be accepted as early as possible, therefore, the resignation was rightly accepted, as such, no inference was called for, by saying so, the appellate authority has rejected the said appeal.
7. The learned counsel further submits that, acceptance of the resignation and non consideration of the withdrawal application and also passing of the order on the same day of the resignation letter without even looking into the contents of the resignation letter, discloses mala fides on the part of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authority. Further he contends that, though this was brought to the notice of the 1 s t respondent by way of withdrawal letter, the same has not been :
7. : properly considered and they have not corrected their mistake. Therefore, he contends that, looking to the entire materials on record, the acceptance of the resignation itself is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submit that, the resignation has been accepted as per the Circular dated 05.10.1990 and as well as the Circular No.793 (B). The Appellate Authority and the Competent Authority after considering the resignation letter have accepted the same in accordance with law, therefore there is no room for interference with such an order.
9. Before discussing the grounds narrated in the resignation letter, let me have a meticulous reading of the said letter which is in vernacular Kannada language which reads as follows; :
8. : Û ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ UÉ, ªÉÄ|| ªÀåªÀ¸ÁÜ¥ÀPÀ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÁAiÀÄĪÀå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ gÀ¸É PÉÃAzÀæ PÀbÉÃj, ºÀħâ½î «¨sÁUÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÁAiÀÄĪÀå PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ UÀzÀUÀ «¨sÁUÀ, UÀzÀUÀ EªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ, gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¥ÀvÀæ «µÀAiÀÄ: ²æà JA.J.
SÁ¢æ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀ®£Á¢üPÁj UÀzÀUÀ «¨sÁUÀ UÀzÀUÀ EªÀgÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀPÉÌ ¨ÉøÀvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV £ÉÆAzÀÄ gÁf£ÁªÉÄ ¤ÃqÀĪÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR: ¸ÀA.ªÁPÀgÀ¸Á/UÀ«/¸ÀA.PÁAiÀÄð/3088 ¢£ÁAPÀ 27-12-2012 ************* ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÄ G¯É èÃRPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ §¸ÀªÀgÁd. «ÃgÀ¥Àà. ±À®ªÀr ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ £ÀA1300UÀzÀUÀ WÀlPÀ UÀzÀUÀ §gÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀ gÁf£ÁªÉÄ ¥ÀvÀæ K£ÉAzÀgÉ - £À£ÀUÉ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀ®£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà JA.J.SÁ¢æ EªÀgÀÄ ¥ÀzÉà ¥ÀzÉà ®AZÀPÁÌV ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, ¤Ã£ÀÄ §ºÀ¼À ¢£ÀUÀ½AzÀ MAzÉà C£ÀĸÀÆa ¦üPÀì ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛ¢ÝAiÀiÁ E£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ MAzÉà C£ÀĸÀÆa ¦üPïì ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀgÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ.1000/- (®AZÀ) ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. E®èªÁzÀgÉ ¤£ÀUÉ C£ÀĸÀÆa §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ ¦Ãr¹zÀgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ®AZÀªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀ®Ä M¥Àà¢zÁÝUÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÉÃgÉ C£ÀĸÀÆa ºÁPÀ®Ä DzÉñÀ ¤ÃrzÁÝgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÁjUÉ PÀ.gÁ.gÀ. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ£ÉAzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝV¤AzÀ C£ÉÃPÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ ºÀt (®AZÀ) ¤ÃqÀĪÀAvÉ vÀ¤SÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. PÁgÀt £Á£ÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀUÉ £À£Àß ¹Üw GzÉÝñÀ- ªÁ¸ÀÛ«PÀvÉ w½¹ ºÀt (®AZÀ) ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤gÁPÀj¹zÉÝ ¤gÁPÀj¸ÀÄvÁÛ EzÉÝãÉ. DzÀgÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è CPÀæªÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ ºÀtPÁÌV ¦Ãr¸ÀvÉÆqÀVzÀgÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄïÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß UÀªÀÄ£ÀPÉÌ vÀAzÀÄ ¨ÉÃrPÉÆAqÉ DzÀgÉ £À£ÀUÉ gÀPÀëuÉ ¹UÀzÁ¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16- 02-2006gÀAzÀÄ UÀzÀUÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ £ÀªÀÄä ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà J¸ï.©.ºÀÆUÁgÀ J.n.L. «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆmÉÖ£ÀÄ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁðZÀgÀuÉ ªÀiÁr ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtzÀ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ ²æà J¸ï.©.ºÀÆUÁgÀ J.n.L. EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §A¢ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 16-2-2006gÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀ Û ¥ÀæPÀgÀt «µÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀwæPÉAiÀÄ°è ¥ÀæPÀlªÁUÀÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ PÀ.gÁ.gÀ. ¸ÁjUÉ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ vÀ¤SÁzÀ¼ÀzÀ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÆ £À£ÀߣÀÄß «¥ÀjÃvÀ zÉéõÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É ¤gÁzsÁgÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢zÁÝgÉ Ûà £Á£ÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ºÁUÀÆ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀzÀgÀ «µÀAiÀĪÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÉ :
9. : PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÀݪÀgÀ §UÉÎ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛjUÉ w½¹zÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ PÉÆqÀĪÀAvÉ ¸À®ºÉ ¤ÃrzÀgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-7-2007gÀAzÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÀt(®AZÀ)PÁÌV ¦Ãr¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà JA.«í. ªÀÄÄQæ J.n.L. ºÁUÀÆ ²æà ¹.JZï.ªÀÄÄPÀÌtÚªÀgÀ J.n.L «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹zÉ. D ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ PÁAiÀiÁðZÀgÀuÉ £Àqɹ ®AZÀzÀ ºÀtzÀ ¸ÀªÉÄÃvÀ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß §A¢ü¹zÀgÀÄ. ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-7-2007gÀAzÀÄ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥À æPÀgÀt zÁR¯ÁzÁV¤AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ Û¯Éà §A¢zÁÝgÉ UÀzÀUÀ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÉÄÃ|| S.O. ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ QgÀÄPÀļÀ ¤ÃqÀÄvÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 31-8-2007gÀAzÀÄ £À£Àß °TvÀ ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÀªÀÄä ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ £À£Àß ¸ÀéAvÀ PÉʧgÀºÀzÀ°è ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß MvÁÛAiÀÄ ¥ÀƪÀðPÀªÁV §gɬĹPÉÆAqÀgÀÄ ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ §gɬĹPÉÆArzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄ£À£ÉÆAzÀÄ ¸ÀzÀgÀ ¢£ÀzÀAzÀÄ ¸Àà¶ÖÃPÀgÀtzÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ªÉÄÃ|| S.O. ¸ÁºÉçgÀªÀjUÉ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£Àß ºÉýPÉAiÀÄ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÄÃ|| S.O. £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ|| S.O. ¸ÁºÉçgÀÄ £À£ÀߣÀÄß PÀgɬĹ ªÀiËTPÀªÁV £À£ÀUÉ ¯ÉÆÃPÁAiÀÄÄPÀÛ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt »AzÉ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄĪÀAvÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ DzÀgÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ|| S.O. ¸ÁºÉçgÀ ¸À®ºÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤gÁPÀj¹zÉ CA¢¤AzÀ aPÀÌ¥ÀÄlÖ «µÀAiÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É zÉéõÀzÀ zÀȶ֬ÄAzÀ £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÁÛgÉ, £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÀÛ°zÁÝgÉ. «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¹n§¸ï ¥Á¸ï ¤ÃqÀĪÀ°è ¥Á¸À ¤ÃrzÀªÀgÀÄ CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ªÉ¸ÀVzÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®ªÀÅ «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¥Á¸ÀÄUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ ¢£ÀªÉÇAzÀPÉÌ ¸Á«gÁgÀÄ gÀÆ¥Á¬Ä ºÁ¤AiÀiÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ JAzÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 23-1-2012gÀAzÀÄ ªÉÄ|| «¨sÁUÀ ¤AiÀÄAvÀæuÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀgÀ¢ PÉÆnÖgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ §UÉÎ EµÉÖ¯Áè PÁ¼Àf EgÀĪÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÉÄ|| «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀ®£Á¢üPÁj ²æà JA.J.SÁ¢æ CªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß C£ÀĸÀÆa §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä DzÉñÀ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ £ÉÆêÀ£ÀÄßAlÄ ªÀiÁr DWÁvÀ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ. ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ°è £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀvɬÄAzÀ, ±ÀæzÉÞ¬ÄAzÀ ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ, «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀ®£Á¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà JA.J.SÁ¢æAiÀĪÀjUÉ ¥Àæw wAUÀ¼ÀÄ gÀÆ. 1000/- (®AZÀ) UÀ¼À£ÀÄß J°èAzÀ vÀAzÀÄPÉÆqÀ°. DzÀÝjAzÀ £Á£ÀÄ «¨sÁVÃAiÀÄ ¸ÀAZÀ®uÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æà JA.J.SÁ¢æ EªÀgÀ QgÀÄPÀļÀPÉÌ ¨ÉøÀvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV £ÉÆÃAzÀÄ gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÉÝãÉ. DzÀPÁgÀt ªÉÄ|| gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß gÁfãÁªÉÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¹éÃPÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄä°è ¥Áæyð¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ. ªÀAzÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÀܼÀ: UÀzÀUÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ :
01. 01-2013 vÀªÀÄä «zsÉÃAiÀÄ ¸À»/- (§¸ÀªÀgÁd «ÃgÀ¥Àà ±À®ªÀr) ¤ªÁðºÀPÀ £ÀA. 13000” :
10. :
10. On careful perusal of the entire materials in the said letter of resignation, on record, it reveal that, the petitioner in his resignation letter dated 01.01.2013, which is a very lengthy, detailed resignation letter, has categorically stated that, one Mr.M.A.Khadri, Divisional Traffic Officer had been demanding bribe from petitioner, even though the petitioner was discharging his duty as an honest man. He also in fact lodged a complaint against some of the officials before the Lokayukta and particularly against Mr.M.V.Mukri,s A.T.I., and Mr.C.H.Mukkannavar, A.T.I alleging that, they were also indulged in corrupt practices. On a complaint lodged by this petitioner, Lokayukta Police have caught them redhanded and in fact those persons have faced disciplinary enquiry as well as criminal cases. In this context he further stated in the said letter that, the Security Officer :
11. : of the respondent department has called him and forced him to withdraw the complaint lodged to the Lokayukta against some of the officers. As he refused for the same, they started humiliating him. Therefore, being frustrated in the department he has tendered his resignation as per letter dated 01.01.2013. Therefore, it is clear from the said letter what are all the circumstances that made the petitioner to tender his resignation.
11. Of course Circular dated 05.10.1990, discloses, what are the procedure that has to be followed before accepting the said resignation. Coupled with this Circular, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation also issued another Circular dated 31.12.2010 as per Annexure G which indicates, what are the responsibilities and what are the prerequisites before recommending for acceptance of the resignation. Now let me consider, whether the said resignation has been :
12. : accepted at least in accordance with these procedure.
12. Of course clause (2) (b) of the Circular dated 05.10.1990 which say that circumstances under which the resignation should be accepted. “Resignations te ndered by the employees to the pos ts he ld by them should normally be accepted with the le ast possible delay except in cases:
1. Where the o fficer concerned is engaged on work of impo rtance and it wo uld take time to make alternative arrangement for filling the post, the resignatio n should not be acc epted s traightway but only when alte rnative arrangements of filling the post have bee n made.
2) Where an employee who is under suspens ion submits a res ignation , the Competent A utho rity sho uld examine with refe rence to the merits of the disc iplinary case pending against the :
13. : employee whethe r it wo uld be in the public inte rest to accept the res ignation. Normally as emplo yees are placed under suspens ion only in cases of grave delinquency it wo uld not be corre c t to accept a res ignation from an employee unde r suspe nsio n. Exception to this rule would be whe re the alle ged offence s do not involve moral turpitude are where the quantum o f evide nce against the accused employee is no t strong e nough to justify the as sumptio n that if the departmental procee dings were continued, the employee wo uld be removed or dismissed from service s or where the departmental procee dings are like ly to be so protrac ted that it would be in the inte rest of the co rpo ratio n to accept the resignation. Sub clause (c) and (d) say about the procedure to be followed in accepting the resignation, which reads as follows; (c) Pro cedure to be fo llo wed in ac cepting resignation : :
14. : An employee inte nding to resign from the pos t held by him should give a notice o f his inte ntion to resign at le ast a month in advanc e indicating the date from which he intends to res ign. The Competent A utho rity may accept a notice of less than a month if there are circums tances warranting such acceptance . A resignation beco mes effec tive when it is accepted and the concerne d employee is relieve d o f his duties. It is the refore necessary to s ee that handing o ver charge , recovery of dues in any fro m the employee and such o the r formalities are comple ted before the emplo yee is relieved o f his duties. Where howeve r employee tende rs res ignation during his unautho rized abs ence or leave , the resignation may be accepted from the date he remained unautho rize dly absent or from the expiry o f le ave sanctione d to him as the case may be. In suc h an e ve nt the ques tio n of relie ving the employee o f his duties does not arise and the res ignation :
15. : becomes effective on its acce ptance by the Competent A uthority. (d) Withdrawal of res ignation. Where a res ignatio n has beco me effec tive any request for its withdrawal should be summarily rejecte d, where a resignation has not become effec tive and the employee wishes to withdraw it, he may be permitted by the Competent Authority to withdraw the resignation. (emphasis su pplie d) 13. The above said Circular makes it abundantly clear that, acceptance of the resignation after filing is not automatic. It should undergo certain procedure to be followed. As per this Circular, it is very much clear that, the accepting authority has to satisfy itself with regard to the circumstances which are enumerated in Circular No.793 dated 05.10.1990 and further sub-clause (c) also says that, firstly if the resignation was given without one month’s notice, it gives the discretion to the employer to :
16. : accept the same. But the rider is, accepting authority has to examine the peculiar circumstances warranting such resignation. That has not been done in this case.
14. Secondly the recovery of dues from the employee, if there is any due and such other formalities have to be completed before the employee is relieved of his duties. Therefore, from reading of the above said conditions it cast the responsibility on the resignation accepting authority before accepting the same he has to satisfy himself that, there was no due from the employee and the same has already been recovered before ordering him to hand over the charges and before relieving him from his duties. In furtherance of this Circular, another Circular dated 31.12.2010 as per Annexure G is issued. Wherein this also clears the doubt that, if there is any due was there, from the employee and the same has to be ascertained and mentioned in the order accepting the resignation. :
17. :
15. In the above said background and in view of the above two circulars, the documents Annexure-H dated 02.11.2012 play a dominant role. According to this document the petitioner was held guilty for his misconduct earlier and he was sentenced to pay a penalty of Rs.1,000/- to be recoverable in 10 installments, this order was passed on 02.11.2012. There is no mention either in the order of acceptance or in the Appellate Authority order that, whether the authorities have enquired into this particular aspect, as to whether any due was sthere from the delinquent employee and whether the said dues have already been recovered before accepting the resignation letter. This also clearly goes to show that as per Annexure- H, an amount of Rs.1,000/- was due not fully recovered from the petitioner.
16. Now coming back to the order impugned which is marked at Annexure-J, which discloses that the said order appears to have been passed on 01.01.2013 itself and it should come into effect from 01.01.2013 itself. That :
18. : also shows that immediately on the date of tendering the resignation itself the same was accepted. It appears, it was very hurriedly accepted by the accepting authority without giving any reasons, what was the such urgency or hurry to warrant the acceptance of the said resignation on the same day when particular circumstances as per the Circular dated 05.10.1990 have not been examined by the accepting authority. The circumstances under which the resignation should be accepted has not been followed and it is not elucidated in the order itself. Therefore it smells some foul play in passing such an order against the petitioner.
17. Of course these are all the mistakes have committed before acceptance of the said resignation letter. That was brought to the notice of the authorities vide letter dated 09.01.2013. It is quite understandable that the letter of communication, communicating the acceptance of the resignation was sent to the petitioner on 10.01.2013 appears to have been received by the :
19. : petitioner on 11.01.2013 as per Annexure-L. The communication to petitioner gives a clear indication that before the communication to the petitioner, on 09.01.2013 itself, he has made a request to withdraw the said resignation. He has specifically stated in the said letter that because of frustration, ill-treatment and harassment by one Mr.M.A.Khadri he was forced to tender his resignation. Annexure-M is also in continuation of Annexure-K the said letter was also given on 09.01.2013 by the wife of the petitioner who has also categorically stated the circumstances under which the said resignation was tendered by her husband. These letters have not been properly considered by the authorities, but they have stated that, once the resignation is accepted that will come into force from the date of acceptance, however an appeal provision is provided therefore the said withdrawal letter cannot be considered by the authorities. The said endorsement was issued as per the Reference No.4 dated 12.03.2013. This point also clarifies the situation that, :
20. : even after request made by the petitioner and his wife, the respondents have not rectified their mistake, that, they have not followed the procedure as contemplated under the above said two circulars. Even the Appellate Authority which passed very bald order, without looking into the grounds urged in the letters given by the petitioner and in the appeal has passed the order Annexure-P, which only says that there is no provision in the Act to consider the request made by the petitioner. Therefore, looking to the above said facts and circumstances, it is very much clear that without enquiring into the matter whether the resignation given by the petitioner was voluntary one or it was under any force or under peculiar circumstances, but very hurriedly the order has been passed, with some malafide intention. Because the above said attitude of the officer i.e., the 1st respondent in accepting the resignation hurriedly without even looking into and understanding the circumstances narrated in the said letter. The said letter is also supported by the allegations made against the :
21. : Security Officer in the resignation letter, wherein the petitioner has stated that the Security Officer has forced him to withdraw all the complaints leveled against the departmental people, as he refused for the same, from that day the higher officers have started humiliating him and treating him with ill will and hatred.
18. When such serious allegations which are made, in my opinion the authorities would not have accepted the resignation so hurriedly on the same day even without following the procedure contemplated under the above said Circulars.
19. In this contest it is worth to mention here, a decision of the Apex Court reported in 2002 LawSuit (SC) 1204 between Prabha Atri Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh almost similar set of facts and circumstances involved in the said case. The Apex Court has observed in the following manner on the facts also which reads thus: :
22. : “Resignation Hospital Service Rules -- Rule 9 -- Appellant an anaesthetist working for about two decades with the hospital – Appellant requested to give anaesthesia to a patient in emergency – Appellant left without informing anybody – Memo issued – Suspension pending inquiry – Reply that earlier memo was replied orally that she was sick and tired and saying that if her explanation was not acceptable she would be left with no choice but to render her resignation – Resignation accepted – Enquiry dropped – Whether reply of memo can be treated as resignation?. – No – Communication purporting to accept a non-existent resignation set aside. Held: This is not a case where it is required to consider as to whether the re-linquishment envisaged under the Rules and conditions of service is unilateral or bilateral in character but whether the letter dated 9-1-1999 could be treated or held to be a letter of resignation or relinquishment of the office, so as to severe her services once and for all. The letter cannot be construed, in our view, to convey any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish her office accompanied by any act of relinquishment. To constitute a “resignation’, it must be unconditional and with an intention to operate as such. At best, :
23. : as observed by this court in the decision in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer (1984) 2 SCC141it may amount to a threatened offer more on account of exasperation, to resign on account of a feeling of frustration born out of an idea that she was being harassed unnecessarily but not, at any rate, amounting to a resignation, actual and simple, the appellant had put in about two decades of service in the hospital, that she was placed under suspension and exposed to disciplinary proceedings and proposed domestic enquiry and she had certain benefits flowing to her benefit, if she resigns but yet the letter dated 9-1-1999 does not seek for any of those things to be settled or the disciplinary proceedings being scrapped as a sequel to her so called resignation. The words “with immediate effect” in the said letter could not be given undue importance defendant hors the context, tenor of language used and the purport as well as the remaining portion of the letter indicating the circumstances in which it was written. That the management of the hospital took up such action forthwith, as a result of acceptance of the resignation is not of much significances in ascertaining the true or real intention of the letter given by the appellant on 9-1-1999. Consequently, it appears to be reasonable to view that as in the :
24. : case reported in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer (Supra) the respondents have seized an opportunity to get rid of the appellant the moment they got the letter dated 9-1-1999 without due or proper consideration of the matter in a right perspective or understanding of the contents thereof. For all the reasons stated above, the order of the High Court under challenge in this appeal is set aside and the appeals are allowed. The communication dated 09.01.1999 purporting to accept a non-existent resignation is set aside.” (emphasis supplied) 20. In the light of the above said ruling, it can be meaningfully understood that, the authorities though have got responsibility to accept the resignation, but they have to examine whether the said resignation was unconditional and really with an intention to resign from the job or else any other peculiar circumstances like harassment or false indictment or any other circumstances which made the employee to forcibly tender the resignation, and thereafter only the authorities have accepted the said resignation. :
25. : Such care has not been taken by respondents No.1 and 2 in this case.
21. The peculiarity and the circumstances under which the resignation was given, why those circumstances have to be examined by the authorities, there is a logic behind the same. It is the legal and moral responsibility of the employer to safeguard the interest of the employees whenever circumstances forced them to give their resignation. It is the prime duty of Departmental heads, to protect the honest and sincere officers from frustration in the department, and for that reason giving up their jobs only due to frustration. If such enquiry has not been done by the employer it would send a wrong message to the persons who work honestly in the department. It is the prime duty of the employer to curb the persons who have committed wrongful acts and commit misconduct and criminal offences so as to bring bad name to the institution. On the other hand it is equally the responsibility of the employer to safeguard the interest of :
26. : such persons who really work for the interest of the department. The authorities have to ascertain, whether their services are tainted with any illegality or misconduct and in order to ascertain the existence of any such circumstances, they have to follow the circulars meticulously issued time to time. The circulars themselves clearly indicate that, they have to make certain enquiry with regard to the pendency of any cases against such employee and whether any dues are there from the employee, whether he is really a menace or unwanted person to the department, for acceptance of the resignation without giving any time for reflection, immediately after such tendering of the resignation. These are all the basic fundamental principles, based on humanitarian grounds which have been floated by respondents No.1 and 2 in not following the strict procedure before accepting the resignation of the petitioner. :
27. :
22. The second limb of the said circular is also very vital, the circular also says that, one month’s notice is required to be given by the employee narrating from which date the respondent has to be accepted.
23. The order accepting the resignation is also bad in law on one more important reason. As already noted, in the circular dated 05.10.1990 clause 2(c) further postulates that the employee intending to resign from the post held by him should give a notice of his intention to resign at least one month in advance including the date from which he intends to resign. The competent authority may accept a notice of less than one month if there are circumstances warranting such acceptance. Therefore, the notice period for resignation can only be waived if the employee himself seeks for acceptance of the resignation before the completion of one month notice period.
24. Before adverting to the legal consequence of this one month period it is just and necessary to bear in :
28. : mind, the resignation letter of the petitioner which I have already quoted. In the resignation letter there is no mention as to when actually the said resignation has to be accepted. It is a simple letter wherein he has made a request to accept his resignation, except that there is no specification with regard to the date of acceptance of the said letter whether before the completion of one month he would like to relieve from his duties.
25. In this context it is worth to mention a decision of the Apex Court reported in 1989 Supp (2) Supreme Court Cases 175 between Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K.Mittal, wherein the Apex Court has observed that: “Service Law – Resignation – Notice period for resignation – Waiver o f, by e mployer and acceptance of res ignation befo re expiry, held, not permiss ible whe re rules silent on acce ptance or rejection of the resignation by the employe r – Further he ld, the employee could withdraw his resignation befo re it became effe ctive – Punj ab Natio nal Bank ( Office rs) Service :
29. : Regulations , 1979 – Re gulation 20(
2) , proviso – Scope –held, does no t e mpower the bank to reduce unilate rally the period of no tice .” 26. Therefore, the above said decision makes it clear that if the employee has not mentioned any period in the resignation letter which would occur before the expiry of one month then it goes without saying that, the employer has to wait for one month for acceptance of the resignation.
27. It is also further held at paragraph No.8 of the said decision that :- “It is true that the re is no s pecific provis ion in the regulatio ns permitting the e mployee to withdraw the re signation. It is , however, not necess ary that there s hould be any such spec ific rule. Until the res ignation becomes effec tive on the te rms of the lette r read with Regulatio n 20, it is open to the emplo yee, o n general princ iples , to :
30. : withdraw his le tte r of res ignation. That is why, in some cas es of public se rvic es, this right o f withdrawal is also made s ubject to the pe rmiss ion o f the emplo yer. The re is no such clause he re. It is not necess ary to labo ur this point further as it is well settled by the earlier dec isions of this court.
28. Now let me consider the facts of this case in the light of the above decision. In this particular case much reliance was placed on the terms of the circular as relied upon by the learned counsel, wherein he draws the attention of this court that the said circular says that the resignation tendered by the employees to the posts held should normally be accepted with least possible time, except delay in some cases. Therefore, it is argued that as soon the letter of resignation was given it was accepted. However, the said circular do not say whether it should be accepted before expiry of that one month notice. :
31. : The advance notice under the said circular is a Sine qua non by the employ, unless where the employee himself desires that, his resignation should be effecged even before the expiry of the period of one month or without notice being given to him the bank may consider such a request and waive the period of requirement of notice if it considered, fit to do so.
29. That question does not arise in the present case, because the employee had not requested the bank to reduce the period of notice or to waive the requirement of notice. The interpretation of the said circular cannot said to be a empowerment to the employer alone, so that even without any request on the part of the employee to reduce the period or waive the requirements of notice the employer can reduce it unilaterally. In other words the employer has no power to accept the resignation with immediate :
32. : effect even though the regulation stipulates a particular notice period. Such interpretation cannot be given as the resignation is a voluntary act an employee therefore may choose to resign with immediate effect or with a notice of less than one month. If the employer accepts the same then only the resignation can be accepted even before one month. Even if the employee would like to resign after the said one month that is in future date, then the employer has to wait only for one month and appropriate orders cannot be passed immediately after that statutory period. Though the employee may express his desire to resign from a future day, that wish of the employee need not be considered by the employer. This should be the interpretation that can be give to the said provision.
30. Further added to that, the said circular cannot be said to be intend only to safeguard the :
33. : interest of the employer to accept the resignation immediately without loss of time. It should be interpreted that the said circular intended not only for the protection of the employer but also for the benefit of the employee. The employee if intends to resign, afterwards may change his decision therefore such period of one month is given for the purpose of reflecting himself whether his act was right or not and thereafter to take a right decision to withdraw the same within one month as provided under the circular. The employer also may need some time to make some alternate arrangements before relieving the resigning employee likewise, the employee also should be given such time of adjustment or rethinking and enabling the employee to think it over the resignation given by him, whether the same to be withdrawn. Therefore, the said circular in my opinion should not be interpreted only enabling :
34. : the employee to thrust a resignation on employee with immediate effect, like the one which has been done in this particular case.
31. Therefore the acceptance of the resignation before expiry of one month is also in my opinion bad in law. Therefore the acceptance of the resignation on the same day by the employer in this case is not sustainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to be quashed.
32. The severe consequences that ensure due to the wrong acceptance of the resignation also to the borne in mind that, he would suffer due to that forcible resignation. The petitioner has to search for some other job, if he does not get any job, himself and his entire family will be thrown to the street. It is not only the punishment to him by accepting the voluntary resignation but :
35. : also punishment to the entire family as such. All these consequences would have been avoided by respondent No.1 and 2, if they would have applied their mind in proper perspective at least in accordance with law as per the above said circulars which has not been done in this case.
33. Therefore, the officers who are in the helm of affairs if they do not take much care of the relevant circular and prevailing circumstances while dealing with their employees, which results in such illegal acceptance of the resignations that, itself amounts to a malafide act of the officers which are to be deprecated by courts of law. With these observations I am of the opinion the acceptance of the resignation and subsequent rejection of the withdrawal application by respondents No.1 and 2 are illegal and the same are liable to be quashed. :
36. :
34. Though this court was inclined to grant full back wages to the petitioner as the court found that there is absolutely no wrong committed by this particular person. Virtually it is a wrongful act on the part of the employer in not examining the real intention of the petitioner in tendering such resignation. However, the learned counsel for the respondents strenuously contends before this court that, whether rightly or wrongly the resignation has been accepted and the petitioner has not worked in the department. Therefore, no work no pay principle is applicable to the present facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, he stubbornly refutes for granting any back wages.
35. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, because of no fault on the part of the petitioner he should not be denied with the back wages merely because he maintained and his family for all these days. But :
37. : that itself is not sufficient to throughout the case of the petitioner for back wages.
36. Striking the balance between the above submissions made by the learned counsel in my opinion merely because the petitioner has maintained himself along with his family members from the date of his resignation that itself is not sufficient that he has been gainfully employed or doing some work somewhere or he has been affluent to maintain his family. Under the above said circumstances I am of the opinion that, granting of 50% of back wages would be reasonable and it would meet the ends of justice. Under the above said circumstances I proceed to pass the following : O RD E R1 Petition is allowed.
2) Consequently the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 01.01.2013 in :
38. : No.VaaKaRaSaa/ GaVi/Sibbandi/C- 3/08/13 as per Annexure-J and as well as the order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 09.12.2013 in No.VaaKaRaSaa:Kenka :Hu:Shistu:1114 as per Annexure-P are hereby quashed.
3) Consequent to quashing of the above said orders, respondents No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and also with 50% of the back wages.
4) The said exercise has to be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. SD/- JUDGE E M / -