Judgment:
1. The instant application is directed against an order communicated under memo No. ADMN/SE/DEPTN/IRCON/248, dated 28th January, 1992, whereby the acceptance of the applicants' resignation under office order No. II/91/ 228, dated 1st January, 1991. w.e.f. 15th July, 1991 (A/N), has been cancelled on the plea of public interest. There was a prayer for direction upon the South Eastern Railway authorities to immediately release the superannuation benefits to which the applicant was entitled to together with 18% interest p.a.
2. The basic facts of the case are uncontroverted. The applicant having joined the Railway Service as Store Issuer got promoted to the post of Section Officer in Garden Reach, South Eastern Railway. Subsequently, pursuant to the invitation of applications for appointment to Indian Railway Construction Company Limited (for short, IRCON), the applicant, being found eligible for appointment on deputation, was released by the parent department i.e., Railways and he thereupon, joined IRCON as Accounts Officer w.e.f. 30th January, 1989, During term of his deputation the applicant made application for permanent absorption in the IRCON and for that purpose the authorities of IRCON required him to tender resignation with the employment of South Eastern Railways vide letter dated 27th June, 1991 (Annexure-A), written by the IRCON to the Railway authorities. Consequent to the direction given by the IRCON authority, the applicant tendered his resignation in the employment with the South Eastern Railway and by an order No. 11/91/228, dated 1st August, 1991 (Annexure-B), the applicant was informed by the South Eastern Railway that the resignation submitted by him has been accepted w.e.f. 15th July, 1991.
3. In the backdrop of the admitted facts, as noticed above, the applicant contended that after acceptance of his resignation by the South Eastern Railway authorities, he would be treated to be an employee duly superannuated from the services of the South Eastern Railway and he was already serving the IRCON to the best of his ability, but he was informed by M/s. IRCON authorities that he has been relieved from the services of M/s. IRCON and he should report for duty to the South Eastern Railway vide letter dated 25th January, 1992 (Annexure-D), issued by the IRCON. Only three days thereafter, the Railway authority (Respondent No. 4) also issued the impugned order as contained in letter dated 28th January, 1992, whereby the applicant's resignation earlier accepted was cancelled in public interest. This order is said to be violative of principles of natural justice as also not sustainable in law. On the other side, the respondents Railways, as also M/s. IRCON, submitted their separate written statement, but at the time of hearing none represented the respondents, M/s. IRCON. It was contended, inter-alia, by the respondents Railways that the acceptance of the applicant's resignation was technical in nature and it was refused on the request of M/s. IRCON as per its request contained in the letter dated, 3rd September, 1991 (Annexure-R/1), and letter dated 3rd October, 1991 (Annexure-R/ 1 (a), issued by the IRCON authority.
There were certain revelation reflected adversely on the working and integrity of the applicant in the IRCON and, therefore, there was a request made by them to review the earlier order of acceptance of resignation. It was for this reason that the impugned order of cancellation of acceptance of the resignation was issued.
4. While looking into the merits of the case, we find a hard fact staring on the record that the impugned order dated 28th January, 1992, whereby, acceptance of resignation was cancelled, was an unilateral act of the respondents' Railways. This order was issued without prior knowledge to the applicant, while giving an opportunity to show cause as to why the earlier acceptance of resignation should be cancelled. It would be apt to refer here that by acceptance of the resignation, the relationship of employer and employee ceases from the date it was accepted and, that being as such, all contractual relation between the two comes to an end. Therefore, the unilateral act of going behind the acceptance of resignation would certainly amount to a prejudice to an incumbent, who had already severed all connections with his employer.
Any such act would certainly be visited with civil consequences, inasmuch as, it does affect the rights and contentions of a particular incumbent arising out of the acceptance of the resignation. In this view of the matter, we find on the very face of it that the impugned order of cancellation of resignation was in blatant violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, we find from the plain reading of the impugned order of cancellation dated 28th January, 1992 (Annexure-F), that it was sought to be done in public interest. What was that public interest for which the cancellation was necessitated has not at all been explained by or on behalf of the contending respondents (the respondents Railways). Quite contrary to this, it was pleaded by the respondents Railways that M/s. IRCON had requested through letters dated 3/9.9.91 and 03.10.1991 (Annexures-R-1 and R-1(a) that certain revelations reflecting adversely on the working and integrity of the applicant had come to the light and, accordingly, it was not possible for them (IRCON) to absorb him. What were those facts adversely affecting the working and integrity of the applicant had not been disclosed to the respondents Railways and, accordingly, those materials were not even disclosed on the present record. In any view of the matter, this fact was hardly sufficient to make out a plea of public interest so as to cancel the acceptance of applicant's resignation.
5. In context of the facts noticed in the preceding paragraph, it was also pertinent to note that M/s. IRCON had already communicated to the respondents Railways by the letter dated 27th June, 1991 (Annexure-A), that the applicant's request for absorption in IRCON has been agreed to by the IRCON, and it was proposed to absorb him in the Company as Accounts Officer. It was further submitted in the said letter that the absorption will be from the date of the approval by the respondents Railways. Here, it would be apt to take note of the fact that the acceptance of resignation was indicative of approval given by the respondents Railways and, therefore, it was not in fitness of thing to have gone behind such approval by an unilateral act of cancelling the acceptance of resignation.
6. Insofar as the applicant's status in M/s. IRCON was concerned, we were conscious of the fact that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with and to determine any dispute in regard to the applicant's service condition, more-so, when the applicant's resignation had already been accepted by the respondents Railways. That being as such, we have restrained ourselves to express any opinion in regard to steps taken by M/s. IRCON determining the applicant's status of service either for his absorption in IRCON, or for relieving him from deputation by an order dated 25th January, 1992 (Annexure-D), which came even prior to the cancellation of the cancellation of resignation as per order dated 28th January, 1992 (Annexure-F).
7. Be it also placed on the record, that in regard to the order dated 25th January, 1992, bearing office order No. 7/92, issued by M/s.
IRCON, whereby, the applicant was relieved w.e.f. 27th January, 1992 (A/N), the applicant moved the Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata, through Writ Petition C.O./C.R. No. 3083(W) of 1992, and by an order dated 31 st March, 1992, passed by the Hon'ble High Court, there was an order of status-quo granted in favour of the applicant. As to what happened ultimately in the C.O./C.R. No. 3083 (W) of 1992, no order of the High Court has been produced, instead the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that eventually the said writ petition has been dismissed for default. Be that as it may, we have earlier expressed our view that in the matter relating to the action on the part of M/s. IRCON, we have chosen not to express any opinion on merits.
8. In the result, this O.A. must succeed and, accordingly, it is allowed. The impugned order dated 28th January, 1992, is hereby quashed and set-aside. Consequent upon setting aside the impugned order, the applicant would be also entitled to the pecuniary relief, together with statutory interest, arising on account of acceptance of his resignation by the respondents Railways.
9. In view of above, the M.A. also stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.