Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 966 (MP)

Kallu Singh v. State of M. P.

2004-12-02

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2004
ORDER A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. By this petition the petitioner has sought the following reliefs: (i) A writ of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to take the petitioner back in service and to permit him to join the office on the post of Driver on which he was appointed. (ii) The petitioner may also be paid his past salary with all consequential benefits. (iii) Any other writ, direction or order, as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also be issued together with awarding of costs of this petition. 2. Later on, petition was amended and a further relief has been sought which reads thus :- A writ in the appropriate nature may kindly be issued to quash the order dated 3-7-1993 contained in Annexure R-1 accepting the resignation of the petitioner. 3. Undisputed fact is that the petitioner vide order dated 30-6-1992 (Annexure A-10) was appointed on the post of Driver by the Collector, Damoh and he was directed to serve under District Woman and Child Development Officer under Integrated Child Development Scheme, Patharia, in pay scale of Rs. 950-1530. During the service tenure of the petitioner, several show cause notices were issued to him which were in regard to that he is not taking care of the vehicle properly. The petitioner has filed Annexure A-6, dated 10-2-1993 which is a reply filed by him against the show cause notice and in this reply he has specifically mentioned that the vehicle was being driven by the son of Sub Divisional Officer who drove it rashly and negligently, as a result of which front glass of the vehicle was broken. It has also been mentioned in the reply that the petitioner was complaining the Sub-Divisional Officer that his son happens to drive the vehicle and, therefore, show cause notices were issued to him. Indeed, according to the petitioner, the show cause notices are the outcome of malice, as the petitioner made complaints against the son of the Sub Divisional Officer, under whom he was serving. Ultimately on 23-4-1993 (Annexure A-8), the petitioner submitted resignation letter addressed to his appointing authority i.e. Collector, Damoh and copies were forwarded to the authorities mentioned in the said annexure. Thereafter, on 29-5-1993 (Annexure A-9), District Woman and Child Development Officer wrote a letter to the Project Officer. Ultimately on 23-4-1993 (Annexure A-8), the petitioner submitted resignation letter addressed to his appointing authority i.e. Collector, Damoh and copies were forwarded to the authorities mentioned in the said annexure. Thereafter, on 29-5-1993 (Annexure A-9), District Woman and Child Development Officer wrote a letter to the Project Officer. Integrated Child Development Scheme, in regard to sending necessary information about the petitioner. A copy of the letter was sent to the petitioner with an endorsement that he should remain present on 3-6-1993 at 11 A.M. in the office positively, failing which ex-parte proceedings shall be initiated against him. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had appeared on 3-6-1993 in compliance to the copy of the letter dated 29-5-1993 (Annexure A-9) but his presence was not noticed and nothing was done on that date. It has been contended by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that on 4-6-1993 he withdrew his resignation letter which he earlier tendered, since it was not accepted by that time. Copy of the withdrawal letter is Annexure A-10. According to Learned Counsel, thereafter the petitioner attended the office, but, no work was being taken from him. As such he submitted another letter to the Collector on 12-9-1993 copy of which is Annexure A-11. 5. It has been contended by Shri Verma that the resignation letter of the petitioner was never accepted by the Collector who is his appointing authority and the resignation letter was accepted by the District Woman and Child Development Officer, who is not his appointing authority. On this premised arguments, it has been contended by Shri Verma that this petition be allowed and since the petitioner has already withdrawn his resignation letter. Therefore, he may be deemed to be in service. 6. On the other hand, it has been contended by Shri A. P. Shroti, Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that Annexures A-10 and A-11were never submitted in the office of the Collector and the resignation letter Annexure A-8, though it was addressed to the Collector but copies whereof were forwarded to several officers, including District Woman and Child Development Officer. Since the copy was forwarded to the said authority also, if the said authority had accepted the resignation, there is no illegality in it. 7. Since the copy was forwarded to the said authority also, if the said authority had accepted the resignation, there is no illegality in it. 7. It is no more in dispute that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Driver was given under the hand and seal of Collector. Indeed he is the appointing authority. It is also no more in dispute that the resignation letter (Annexure-8) was addressed to the appointing authority i.e. Collector. Merely because copies of resignation letter were sent to several other officers would not mean that those officers can accept the resignation letter of the petitioner. Admittedly, Collector, who is the appointing authority has not accepted the resignation letter of the petitioner. Indeed, District Woman and Child Development Officer on 3-7-1993 accepted the resignation letter of the petitioner. Admittedly, District Woman and Child Development Officer is not the appointing authority of the petitioner and the said post is inferior to the post of Collector. In this view of the matter, according to me, the acceptance of resignation letter was not in accordance with law and it cannot be said that resignation letter was validly accepted. Indeed, the act of acceptance of resignation letter by the District Woman and Child Development Officer is "Coram-non-judice", since District Woman and Child Development Officer was not having any jurisdiction to accept the resignation letter of the petitioner, it cannot be said that the same was validly accepted. Though it has been disputed by Learned Counsel for the respondents that withdrawal of resignation letter was tendered to the Collector, but, in the present facts and circumstances since by this petition the petitioner has submitted that he has already withdrawn the resignation letter and since the resignation letter has not been validly accepted by the appointing authority, the view of this Court is that the resignation letter has been withdrawn. 8. One fact which cannot be marginalized and blinked away is that vide Annexure A-9, which is a letter addressed to Project Officer, dated 29-5-1993 and a copy whereof was also sent to the petitioner and he was directed to remain present on 3-6-1993 at 11 A.M. positively, it has further been mentioned that if the petitioner would not appear, ex-parte proceedings shall be initiated against him, but, according to Annexure R-1, which is the note sheet, the matter was not taken up on 3-6-1993. The contention of Shri Shroti is that since the petitioner was absent on that date, therefore, the matter was not taken up. According to me, since a specific direction was given to the petitioner that he should remain present on 3-6-1993 at 11 A.M. positively, failing which ex-parte proceedings shall be initiated against him, it was incumbent upon the authority to write the proceedings on that date mentioning the fact that the petitioner was absent. On going through Annexure R-1 which is a note sheet it is revealed that on 21-5-1993 it was proposed that the resignation letter of the petitioner may be accepted and thereafter the file was marked to the District Woman and Child Development Officer who ultimately on 3-7-1993 accepted the resignation, in-between there is nothing on record that what had happened on 3-6-1993. 9. I have already held that the resignation letter was not accepted by the appointing authority to whom it was addressed and, therefore, it cannot be said that it has been validly accepted. Since, the petitioner has withdrawn the resignation letter (Annexure A-8), he shall be deemed to be in service. 10. Resultantly, this petition is allowed and the respondents are hereby directed to take the petitioner back in service and to allow him to join his duties, without any back wages. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.