Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 609 (ALL)

RAMESH KUMAR v. STATE OF U P

2001-07-03

PRADEEP KANT

body2001
PRADEEP KANT, J. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Development Officer, Sultanpur dated 26- 10-1995 contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition by means of which the alleged resignation of the petitioner from service has been accepted. 2. The petitioner was appointed in pursuance of the selection held on 28-4-1994 on a Class IV post i. e. , Sweeper and was posted in Vikas Khand Sangrampur vide order dated 6-5-1994. The petitioner joined his services in pursuance of the aforesaid appointment order. Incidentally on 24-12-1994, it is stated that a resignation letter was submitted by him addressing to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur through Block Development Officer, Sultanpur. This resignation letter has been accepted by the District Development Officer, Sultanpur vide his order dated 24th October, 1995. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he has never submitted any resignation of his own free will. As a matter of fact the then Block Development Officer, Sangrampur (who is reported to be dead) was annoyed with the petitioner and he used to treat him inhumanly, locked the petitioner in a room and after putting undue pressure and influence and also by coercing him, got his signatures on a blank paper which paper has been used for preparing a resignation letter on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioners allegation is that resignation letter, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition does not bear his hand writing and the signatures appended to the said letter also indicate that the signatures were appended earlier and the contents have been written later on by some other person. On coming to know about the alleged illegal design of Opposite Party No. 3 the petitioner immediately on 24th December, 1994 made a representation to the District Development Officer who is the appointing authority of the petitioner narrating the whole incident therein and also requesting that justice may be done with him and he may be transferred to some other place. There is an endorsement of receipt of the same date of the office of District Development Officer, Sultanpur. 4. Another letter is said to have been written on 6th January, 1995 re-asserting that the petitioner was subjected to cruel treatment and was compelled to sign on blank paper and therefore, justice should be done with him. Similar letter has been written on 9th February, 1999. 5. 4. Another letter is said to have been written on 6th January, 1995 re-asserting that the petitioner was subjected to cruel treatment and was compelled to sign on blank paper and therefore, justice should be done with him. Similar letter has been written on 9th February, 1999. 5. These two letters do not indicate any endorsement of receipt by any office. However, another letter dated 3-5-1995, which is addressed to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, appears to have been sent by registered post and the photo copies of the postal receipts have been also brought on record. In this letter, the petitioner has raised his grievance against the ill conduct of the officer concerned which made him to rush to the concerned Police Station to get an FIR registered and to contact various other authorities so hat his resignation may not be accepted and he may not be allowed to suffer because of the illegal act of Opposite Party No. 3. Despite the aforesaid letters/representation made by the petitioner, against his submission of resignation, the District Development Officer, Sultanpur, has accepted the so-called resignation of the petitioner on 24th December, 1994 by means of his order dated 26th October, 1995. 6. In defence of this acceptance of the resignation on 24th October, 1995 the learned Standing Counsel submitted that it has not been any where specifically stated by the petitioner that the resignation be treated to be withdrawn or the same be not accepted. His only ground for challenge is that it has been obtained under coercion and, therefore, an enquiry was made by the Block Development Officer in which the petitioner did not co-operate, wherein it has been found that the resignation has been submitted out of free will of the petitioner as no force has been used against him. In this view of the matter the District Development Officer has rightly accepted the resignation vide his impugned order. 7. It may be relevant to mention that none of the letters namely letter dated 24th December, 1994, 6th January, 1995 and 9th February, 1995 including 3rd May, 1995, have been disputed by the State in the counter-affidavit. It has no where been stated that these letters were not received in the office of the concerned officer to whom they were addressed. It has no where been stated that these letters were not received in the office of the concerned officer to whom they were addressed. The only defence which has been taken is that since the petitioners version of using undue influence and coercion as also use of force were not found to be true, therefore, the resignation has been accepted. 8. With respect to letter dated 3rd May, 1995, it has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the State that it has been addressed to District Magistrate and not to the District Development Officer, and therefore, the District Development Officer has rightly accepted the resignation. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner in response to the said argument submitted that since the resignation was addressed to the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, therefore, the petitioner as advised, has written this letter to the District Magistrate, although copies of the same have been sent to the Minister, and the Secretary of the Department concerned also. 10. It is needless to say that any resignation, even if, tendered out of own free will can be withdrawn by the employee before it is accepted. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance reported in 1999 (17) LCD 1287, Dinesh Kumar Srivastava v. Commandant 15th Battallian PAC, Agra, (1993) 2 SCC 725, Moti Ram v. Param Deo, (1990) 4 SCC page 27, J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others and 1969 AIR (SC) 180, Raj Kumar v. Union of India. 12. The petitioner, even if, it is assumed although the circumstances do not warrant to assume that the resignation was tendered by the petitioner out of his own free will, details of which could be given later on, even then the petitioner was at liberty to request the authorities to withdraw the resignation and not to accept the same before it was accepted. It is not denied by the learned Counsel for the State that so-called resignation was tendered on 24th December, 1994 to the District Magistrate whereas the appointing authority of the petitioner is District Development Officer, who was to accept the resignation. On that very date i. e. , 24th December, 1994, the petitioner made a representation against the aforesaid resignation in which he raised his grievance about using of undue force and coercive methods said to have been adopted. On that very date i. e. , 24th December, 1994, the petitioner made a representation against the aforesaid resignation in which he raised his grievance about using of undue force and coercive methods said to have been adopted. He also prayed in this representation that he be transferred to some other place. The natural inference which can be drawn by any person of ordinary prudence was that the petitioner was in fact willing to get his resignation withdrawn and the same should not be accepted by the District Development Officer. 13. The aforesaid representation of the petitioner has not been accepted to the contrary on the basis of the letter of the petitioner namely 24th December, 1994 and other subsequent letters it is said that an enquiry was got conducted by the Block Development Officer and it was found that the resignation was voluntary. The finding recorded on this point that the resignation was tendered voluntarily would not give a right to the appointing authority to accept the same, in case request for its withdrawn is made by the employee concerned before its actual acceptance. As a matter of fact once the intention of the petitioner which was very clear and unambiguous that he was not willing to get his resignation accepted and had requested for his posting and transfer the appointing authority could not have proceeded with for accepting the resignation after these representations were received. Non-appearance of the petitioner in the enquiry which according to the learned Counsel for the State as per the averments made in the counter-affidavit related to the question as to whether the resignation was obtained forcibly or it was tendered voluntarily but that would not have any impact about the factum of withdrawn of the resignation and the same can be withdrawn before the resignation could be accepted. 14. A bare perusal of the resignation, the copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-3, indicates that it is not in the handwriting of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the State has also tried to justify the action by saying that the petitioner was not a sincere employee and was not attending his duties sincerely. There was negligence towards his duties and he was also in the habit of violating the orders of the superior officers and was habitual absentee from duty. The learned Counsel for the State has also tried to justify the action by saying that the petitioner was not a sincere employee and was not attending his duties sincerely. There was negligence towards his duties and he was also in the habit of violating the orders of the superior officers and was habitual absentee from duty. These allegations which have not been established by any document on record or by any evidence could not justify the acceptance of the resignation after the same was requested to be withdrawn by the petitioner. In case the petitioner was guilty of the charges as stated above action in accordance with law, should have been taken or the authority concerned may adopt any other procedure which may be permitted under law to punish the petitioner suitably for the aforesaid charges of misconduct but it cannot be a ground for accepting the resignation. 15. In view of the facts that the petitioner has immediately resisted and represented to the authority for not accepting the resignation, since the very day when the resignation is said to have been tendered and subsequently by continuously requesting the authorities for not accepting the resignation, the appointing authority was not vested with any power to accept the same after receiving the request of the petitioner for its withdrawal. The order dated 26-10-1995 accepting the resignation of the petitioner dated 24-12-1994, is thus hereby quashed. Let a writ of certiorari be issued accordingly. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. 16. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. .