Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 635 (ALL)

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. LAKHAN SINGH

2000-04-28

PALOK BASU, U.K.DHAON

body2000
PALOK BASU, J. ( 1 ) IF voluntariness is the primary requirement in alt actions concerning a document which is termed as resignation letter, it should follow that the voluntariness should be explicit from the initial stage of writing of the said letter and extend to the voluntary action of tendering the same to the concerned authority or his agent. ( 2 ) THE controversy in the instant writ petition shall be correctly answered if there be no confusion about the steps which have to be taken and things which may intervene between writing of it on the one hand and submitting the same on the other. In case it is found that there is absolute absence of any proof of voluntarily tendering of the resignation letter, the mere writing of it should never be taken to be a voluntary conduct of resigning from the post of the person concerned. ( 3 ) WHAT has been stated above, is the outcome of all the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court whether it was the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India. SCSR, Vol. 19, p. 396, or it was the case of Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 or it was the case of P. Kasilingam v. P. S. G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 or it was the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, (1990) 4 SCC 27 , or it was the case of state of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1977) 3 SCC 321. ( 4 ) LAKHAN Singh, who was the petitioner before the U. P. Public Services Tribunal was successful in convincing the Tribunal that what was said to be resignation letter on his part, was not voluntary termination of his employment by his own will but was also contrary to the letter and spirit emanating from the provisions of Regulation 505 of the U. P. Police Regulations. Consequently, when the alleged resignation letter dated May 8, 1980, was said to have been accepted by the respondent authority, the same should have never determined his employment. Lakhan Singh went to the Public Services Tribunal challenging the same and luckily the Public service Tribunal went in his favour. Consequently, when the alleged resignation letter dated May 8, 1980, was said to have been accepted by the respondent authority, the same should have never determined his employment. Lakhan Singh went to the Public Services Tribunal challenging the same and luckily the Public service Tribunal went in his favour. ( 5 ) THE relevant finding of the Tribunal should be quoted here : "considering the contents of the resignation and the surrounding circumstances, I hold that the resignation of the petitioner was unfairly accepted contrary to the spirit of Section 9 of the Police act and Para 505 of the Police Regulations. Such an acceptance cannot be considered lawful or valid. Hence, the application of the petitioner dated June 22, 1980, operates as valid withdrawal of the notice and the petitioner has to be treated in service. " ( 6 ) SINCE the order of Tribunal was passed on 5. 4. 1986 and more than six years had lapsed from the date of the alleged resignation letter, it was held by the Tribunal that balance of the salary or remuneration was not to be paid to the petitioner. It is good that Sri P. N. Bajpayee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent concerned has stated that the respondent No. 1 does not and would not claim even if decision of this petition goes in his favour, for balance of salary or remuneration and wants the posting on the cadre with salary as it exists on date. ( 7 ) SRI Shreshwal, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-State of U. P. has vehemently argued the matter and criticised the Tribunals judgment on primarily three grounds. ( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the grounds, it should be noted here that type of preparation and sincerity with which the matter has been put before this Court by Sri Shreshwal, was commendable and has been appreciated by this Court. ( 8 ) BEFORE adverting to the grounds, it should be noted here that type of preparation and sincerity with which the matter has been put before this Court by Sri Shreshwal, was commendable and has been appreciated by this Court. ( 9 ) SINCE it is not denied that Lakhan Singh respondent was initially posted as constable in P. A. C. Battalion, Nainital on October 30, 1970 and having completed the probation period of two years without any hindrance, was confirmed on his post and then was subsequently promoted to the post of Lance Nayak and it was in that capacity he was working on May 8, 1980, it was argued that the Department where the respondent Lakhan Singh was working, required exemplary discipline and none should have been permitted to bring indiscipline amongst members of the force. It was then argued that the letter of resignation was voluntary and the Tribunal went to record the aforesaid finding without any basis and this Court should interfere. Second ground argued was that the Tribunal further committed error in accepting the respondents application of joining as a valid joining application and on that basis, it should not have interpreted the term used in the resignation letter. The third argument is that the petitioner has admitted in his rejoinder-affidavit filed before the Tribunal the fact of making of resignation letter and its voluntarily tendering before the Authority concerned and, therefore, this Court should not enter into the enquiry of finding out whether the resignation letter was voluntarily tendered even if it is held that it might have been written voluntarily. ( 10 ) SRI P. N. Bajpayee has stated in reply that the law is unchanged till date that a document and its contents cannot be added or altered by putting elsewhere an additional note or using one language in one affidavit and another language in another. ( 10 ) SRI P. N. Bajpayee has stated in reply that the law is unchanged till date that a document and its contents cannot be added or altered by putting elsewhere an additional note or using one language in one affidavit and another language in another. The circumstances attending the alleged letter, according to Sri Bajpayee, pointed out only one inference and that is that the concerned respondents brother was seriously ill on May 8, 1980, he wanted to have leave ; it was not sanctioned to him ; for the respondent, going to attend the brother was important and unavoidable and, therefore, an application for leave was made which did not meet with success and the petitioner went to attend his brother and immediately on his returning he filed an application for rejoining his duties. Therefore, there was no occasion of any voluntary step on the part of the claimant for which he had to submit any resignation letter. During course of arguments, Sri Bajpayee further pointed out that in the counter-affidavit the admitted position in para 6 is as follows : "6. That in para 6 of the petition, it is admitted that the petitioner absconded from the duty which is a very serious matter. Later on his resignation was found which was accepted. " ( 11 ) WITH this background, it was contended that neither any affidavit nor any evidence nor any application has been produced through counter-affidavit before the Tribunal or even in this writ petition which may throw light on the mode and method of submitting the said letter by the claimant to any person in authority. Argument further proceeded that as a remorseful action of the respondent No. 1, he might have written some lines on a piece of paper and unless he had submitted the same, there was no occasion for presuming that the claimant had voluntarily tendered his resignation to the authority concerned. Therefore, the acceptance of the alleged letter was wholly illegal. ( 12 ) BEFORE proceeding further with the discussions into the matter, Sri Bajpayee has drawn attention of the Court to the entries in the General Diary maintained at the barrack of the battalian in which the respondent No. 1 was posted, as recorded on 8. 5. 1980. Therefore, the acceptance of the alleged letter was wholly illegal. ( 12 ) BEFORE proceeding further with the discussions into the matter, Sri Bajpayee has drawn attention of the Court to the entries in the General Diary maintained at the barrack of the battalian in which the respondent No. 1 was posted, as recorded on 8. 5. 1980. The entries leave no manner of doubt that there was never voluntary submission of the resignation letter by the respondent No. 1. He drew attention of the Court to the entries which run as follows : "the applicant left for home today at about 9. 30 hours leaving this unconditional resignation which may kindly be accepted. " the aforesaid entry was then reported by the Assistant Commissioner with the following note : "c/lakhan Singh has submitted his resignation. He has left the Bn. Hq. Quarters also. " "i strongly recommend that his resignation may kindly be accepted. " the Commanding Officer ultimately passed order on May 12, 1980, to the following effect : "resignation accepted w. e. f. 8. 5. 1980. " ( 13 ) IT was argued by Sri Bajpayee that the fact that the respondent No. 1 never tendered such letter to any authority whatsoever, is also borne out from affidavit which was filed by the petitioner who was defendant in the claim petition before the Tribunal and reference to it has already been made through the averments made in para 6 of the counter-affidavit which is that later on his resignation was found which was accepted (emphasised by Court ). In this very connection, the averments made in the rejoinder-affidavit which was filed by the claimant before the Tribunal existing in this regard is in Annexure-5 may be noted which is as follows : "5. That the contents of para 5 of the W. S. are denied. The deponent on receipt of the telegram relating to the illness of the brother applied for leave which was refused. Thereupon the petitioner moved another application and requested for permission to leave station and personally appeared before the sanctioning authority who verbally permitted the deponent to leave the station and proceeded to his home. " "6. That the contents of para 6 of the W. S. are denied for want of knowledge. It is wrong to say that the deponent absconded from the duties. In fact his leave application was there. " "6. That the contents of para 6 of the W. S. are denied for want of knowledge. It is wrong to say that the deponent absconded from the duties. In fact his leave application was there. The circumstances clearly shows that the resignation was conditional. He was allowed to proceed on leave, therefore, the resignation was submitted. The resignation was wrongly accepted without the enquiry regarding the condition. " "7. That the contents of para 7 of the W. S. are denied. The resignation was submitted as the leave was not sanctioned. The language of the resignation clearly shows that the deponent have mentioned that he is unable to serve the country which indicates that his intention for resignation was conditional. He never said that he was unable to serve on his post. The reports of the officers on the resignation clearly shows that the acceptance of the resignation amounts to removal from the services which is not possible without the compliance of the Rule 55a of the Civil Services (C. C. A. Rules ). As per reports of the authorities an enquiry for the charge of the absconding was necessary. " ( 14 ) THE Regulation 505 has been referred by the Tribunal and the benefit of the same has been extended to the respondent. Therefore, it is being quoted for ready reference. "505. A police officer of the rank of Inspector or below can resign his office on giving in writing two months notice of his intention to resign but he shall not withdraw from the duties of his office until such time his resignation has been formally accepted by the appropriate authority and he has fully discharged any debt due by him as such police officer to Government or to any police fund : provided that such a resignation may be accepted by the authority with effect from a date prior to the date of expiry of the notice. Provided further that the resignation of a police officer whose conduct is under enquiry or who is being proceeded against departmentally under Section 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (Act No. V of 1861) or tried in a court of law for any offence may, in the discretion of such authority, not be accepted until such time the final orders are passed as a result of such enquiry, proceedings or trial as the case may be. " ( 15 ) HAVING thus noted all the relevant arguments, facts and the material existing on the record, the respective contentions have been examined very minutely. ( 16 ) THE resignation letter in turn should indicate itself as a resignation letter only if it was tendered voluntarily by the employee concerned. If a letter is written under some compulsion, coercion or mental imbalance but is only kept with the writer and is not forwarded by the writer to the authority empowered to receive such resignation letter, its gathering by any person or its reaching him in any other method cannot be interpreted as voluntary submission of resignation by the employee. The consequences of holding otherwise may be disastrous. In some moment, one may be jotting down a few lines and leaving document at the table or in the box or in the room but that should not permit any third person to take advantage of the said writing and managing to reach it to a person in the hierarchy of authority who may accept it after 4-5 days. In this case, reaching after five days of the aforesaid letter to the authority concerned also speaks in favour of the respondent that the letter might have been obtained from some other place where the respondent had kept it or left it. Initially, in the entry in General Diary and noting on the letters, noted above, itself shows that the letter was found by him. He does not say that the respondent No. 1 had given it to him. In the instant case, therefore, there is no evidence that the respondent No. 1 tendered his resignation voluntarily and, therefore, finding of the Tribunal in treating the letter as resignation letter is not correct and should be substituted by expression "letter written by the respondent which was never voluntarily tendered as resignation letter. " ( 17 ) THE Tribunal was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the respondent-claimant should not be taken to have relinquished the job as he was bound to follow the Rules contained in U. P. Police Regulations. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal is upheld by this Court as also the view that the letter of respondent-claimant dated 22. 5. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal is upheld by this Court as also the view that the letter of respondent-claimant dated 22. 5. 1980 by which he reported for duty, was due intimation of his coming back and seeking permission to join the duties and the interpretation put to that letter that it was for withdrawal of notice as required under Rule 505 of u. P. Police Regulations is also upheld. ( 18 ) AS has already been noted above, the respondents counsel has made a statement which will cover the period of 5. 4. 1986, i. e. , the date of judgment of the Tribunal and upto this date, no balance of salary or remuneration or dues should be payable. But for pensionary benefits, the period shall be counted. Nonetheless the respondent-claimant would make a representation for getting the reinstatement on the post on the amount of salary which should have been payable to him had he continued in service. ( 19 ) WRIT petition consequently falls and is dismissed with the following directions : (1) Respondent-claimant will make a representation for reinstatement in service w. e. f. 22. 6. 1980 which will be considered by the petitioners within three months from today, keeping in view the observations made above and that of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal in its judgment dated 5. 4. 1986 ; (2) No arrears of salary or remuneration shall be paid to the respondent-claimant for the period between 8. 5. 1980 to 22. 6. 1980 and from 22. 6. 1980 till date but for pensionary benefits it will be counted ; (3) The respondent-claimant shall be entitled to get posting and remuneration of the post he may have now been placed, had he been continuously in the employment since 8. 5. 1980, from the day he joins in pursuance of the order to be passed on the representation by the petitioners within three months. ( 20 ) PARTIES will bear their own costs. .