M. F. SALDANHA, J. ( 1 ) THE legal heirs of one Munawar Hussain have preferred this petition and they have sought to assail the correctness of an award dated July 12, 1996. The brief facts giving rise to the controversy are that the deceased-petitioner who is now represented by his legal heirs namely the wife and minor children, was appointed as a Helper on november 3, 1971. The case made out is that he has put in approximately 13 years of service and that he had submitted his resignation on March 29, 1983 which was supported by a medical certificate making out the case that he was unfit to continue with his duties. The Corporation accepted the resignation on May 12, 1986. Long thereafter, in the year 1988 by virtue of the provisionsof Section 10 (4) (A) which werethen incorporated on the statute book, an application was filed for setting aside the order of the corporation accepting the resignation. The case made out was that the petitioner had by communication dated April 15, 1983 revoked or withdrawn the resignation submitted by him and that the Corporation had ignored this revocation and had acted on the basis of the original resignation. It was consequently contended that the termination which was by virtue of the resignation letter is bad in law, that it should be struck down and that the petitioner should be permitted to continue with his services with consequential benefits. By the time the case was taken up for evidence, the petitioner had died and his wife was examined as the solitary witness in support of the application. In her evidence she has stated that the petitioner was advised to withdraw the letter of resignation. That he had done so and that he had forwarded the revocation under certificate of posting to the Corporation and a receipt to that effect was produced. The copy of the resignation letter was not produced and on the other hand the Corporation vehemently contended that at no stage had the petitioner revoked the original letter of resignation, that the application is an afterthought and that consequently it should be dismissed. The copy of the resignation letter was not produced and on the other hand the Corporation vehemently contended that at no stage had the petitioner revoked the original letter of resignation, that the application is an afterthought and that consequently it should be dismissed. ( 2 ) I need to mention at this stage that the corporation did challenge the maintainability of the application, that even though it was filed within the prescribed period of six months from the date on which the, amendment had taken place that there was no proceeding alive as on that date and, therefore, it was not maintainable. The petitioner sought to contend that he had been making representations and appeals against the order and that these have not been disposed of and were pending and that therefore the application was in time. It was within the province of the Corporation to have checked its record and to have examined its officer who could have deposed to the effect that there were no applications or appeals pending but this was not done. It is rather characteristic of the very cavalier manner in which these departmental enquiries were being conducted and the equally off-hand manner in which the follow-up of cases was being looked after on behalf of the corporation at that time. It was principally because of this default that the lower Court entertained the application and on the state of the present record I do not propose to interfere with that finding. ( 3 ) AS far as the main issue is concerned, the petitioners learned advocate submitted that there is no reason why the evidence of the wife should be discarded. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner was alleged to have been habitually remaining absent from his duties and that he was facing disciplinary proceedings and that he relied on the corporations own circular which has been interpreted by my Brother G. PATRI BASAVANA goud, J. inw. P. No. 16659/ 1999. Learned counsel submitted that where a disciplinary proceeding is pending and an employee submits a resignation that it is not incumbent on the Corporation to apply its mind to the question as to whether the resignation should be accepted because it would have the effect of terminating the disciplinary proceedings. P. No. 16659/ 1999. Learned counsel submitted that where a disciplinary proceeding is pending and an employee submits a resignation that it is not incumbent on the Corporation to apply its mind to the question as to whether the resignation should be accepted because it would have the effect of terminating the disciplinary proceedings. It was further submitted that in the absence of such an evaluation being done that the acceptance of the resignation during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings will have to be struck down by this Court as it is a serious breach of procedure. ( 4 ) I do not dispute that there is considerable substance in this argument. What the Court needs to take into account is that the whole philosophy behind such a guideline being issued by the Corporation is to avoid situations wherein employees who have committed major misconduct which would justify major penalties such as dismissal from service should not be permitted to short circuit the consequence of their misconduct by resigning during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding. The departments learned counsel has pointed out this feature and she has perhaps justifiably submitted that even assuming that such an evaluation was not done, before interfering with the order of acceptance of resignation this Court will have to look at the nature of misconduct alleged and would also have to conclude that under normal circumstances, the Corporation would not have accepted the resignation because the employee was facing very grave charges. She submits that the only ; allegation against the petitioner was that he was remaining absent from his duties, that he had submitted a medical certificate which effectively established that his health had broken down and in this back-ground, it made little difference to the Corporation where an enquiry was held and the petitioners services were terminated or if the Corporation took a more humane view of the matter and allowed him to go away by accepting his resignation without insisting on proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry. I do need to accept that even though normally the evaluation should have been done, that I must uphold the above submission canvassed on behalf of the corporation because that is not a case in which had the appropriate authority of the corporation applied its mind to the allegations in the charge-sheet, that authority could have ever held that the resignation should not be accepted. This objection will have to be overruled. ( 5 ) LASTLY, it is really a question of evaluation of evidence and the onus of, establishing that the letter of resignation was revoked rests heavily on the petitioner or the petitioners legal representatives. The learned counsel submitted that the wife was a young woman who was considerably handicapped after the petitioner died but one cannot lose sight of the fact that when the application was filed, the petitioner was very much alive and he has produced no evidence of any sort in support of his application. On the other hand, what is submitted is that the ground for resignation was because of breakdown of health and the medical certificate is on record which establishes that the petitioners health was so hopelessly bad that he was rendered totally unfit. It is inconceivable that from such a sad situation his health could have got completely restored within hardly two weeks and he would have asked for revocation of his earlier decision. Had he thought of doing so, it is most elementary that he would have had to obtain a medical certificate to the effect that he has regained his health and in fact there is no such document. On facts, there is absolutely no case on the basis of which the petitioners application could have been upheld. The Court has rightly rejected it and I see no ground on which that order can be faulted with having regard to this position. ( 6 ) THOUGH on merits, no relief is possible as far as the petitioner is concerned, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was a young man when his health broke down, that he has left behind a widow and minor children and that this is a case in which purely on humanitarian grounds the corporation should consider whether it is possible to assist the family in any way. His submission was that in cases where the bread winner dies, compassionate employment is offered to another family member and even though the family may not qualify in this case for a variety of reasons, the Corporation should consider the possibility of some assistance. All that this Court can do is to recommend to the Corporation that if any of the family members were to apply for employment and if they are otherwise found fit that the application may be favourably considered. With these observations, the writ petition do stand disposed of. --- *** --- .