S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE Management of Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Ltd. , (for short referred to as 'company) which is a Karnataka Government undertaking, situated in Bangalore, has preferred this writ appeal, being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge 07/01/2003 in W. P. No. 16736 of 1999. The respondent herein preferred the above writ petition for a writ of certiorari to quash the relieving order No. KSDL. DSN. 175. C. 98-99. 145 dated 18. 02. 1999 passed by the General Manager of the Company which is marked as Annexure-E to the writ petition. ( 2 ) THE background facts leading to the filing of the writ petition may be noted briefly in the first instance and they are as follows: the petitioner was appointed as a Sales Supervisor by the Company on 19. 08. 1988 and his services were confirmed on the completion of the probation vide order dated 30-08-1990/01. 09. 1990. On 19. 01. 1999, the petitioner submitted a letter to the Regional Manager of the Company, which reads as follows:"the target accepted by me is Rs. 12. 50 laksh for the month of January, 1999. Further, after detailed consideration, my commitment for sales and collection is Rs. 12. 50 lakhs for January, 1999. In case, I do not achieve the commitment of collections, you may treat this as my resignation letter and relieve me from the services of the company. " ( 3 ) ON 18. 02. 1999, the General Manager of the Company issued relieving order marked as Annexure-E, which reads as follows:"this has reference to your resignation letter dtd. 19. 1. 99 for the post of Supervisor (Sales ). The Competent Authority has accorded approval that in the interest of Company's work three-months notice period has been waived and in lieu three-months salary has been paid to you as per the terms of your Appointment Order. Accordingly, you are hereby relieved from the services of the Company with immediate effect. Further, as stated already, in lieu of notice period please find enclosed a cheque towards three-months salary. You are requested to contact Chennai Branch for settlement of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other benefits as per Company Rules. Please acknowledge the receipt of the same. "being aggrieved by Annexure-E, he preferred an appeal dated 08. 03. Further, as stated already, in lieu of notice period please find enclosed a cheque towards three-months salary. You are requested to contact Chennai Branch for settlement of Provident Fund, Gratuity and other benefits as per Company Rules. Please acknowledge the receipt of the same. "being aggrieved by Annexure-E, he preferred an appeal dated 08. 03. 1999 to the Managing Director of the Company and since the Managing Director dismissed the appeal, the petitioner preferred Writ Petition No. 16736 of 1999, calling in question, the validity of Annexure-E. In writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing of Annexure-E and also for a mandamus, directing the Company to reinstate him into service with continuity of service and all other consequential benefits including full back-wages from the date of the impugned order till the date of reinstatement. ( 4 ) THE writ petition was opposed by the Company by filing statement of objections. It was contended by the Company that the writ petitioner himself voluntarily submitted his resignation letter dated 19. 01. 1999 and as requested by him his resignation was accepted and he was relieved from duty as per Annexure-E on 18. 02. 1999 and therefore, the writ petitioner is not entitled for any relief claimed by him in the writ petition. ( 5 ) LEARNED Single Judge having appreciated the materials placed before him has come to the conclusion that the resignation was procured by the Company from the petitioner and it was not a voluntary resignation. In the circumstance, learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition quashing Annexure-E and directed the Company Management to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and 50% of the back-wages from the date of his relieving from service till the date of his reinstatement with continuity of service. Hence, this writ appeal by the Management of the Company. ( 6 ) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Company and Sri S. B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel for the respondent. ( 7 ) AT the threshold, it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has exceeded the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in reviewing the disputed facts. In support of his submission, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. In support of his submission, Learned Counsel has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Indian Railway Construction Co. Ltd. Vs. Ajay Kumar, 2003-II-LLJ 150 Nand Keshwar Prasad Vs. M/s. Indian Farmers Fertilizers Cooperative Ltd. And Others 1999 LLR 228 and Federation Of Railway Officers Association and Other Vs. Union of India 2003 AIR SCW 1764. Alternatively, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for the appellant that the factual finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is perverse and there is no evidence to support that finding. ( 8 ) SRI. Mukkannappa, Learned Counsel for the respondent writ petitioner per contra, supports the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and submits that the documents of the company themselves would clearly show that the writ, petitioner was coerced to give resignation letter dated 19. 01. 1999 and that letter was not one given by the writ petitioner by exercising his fee will and voluntarily. ( 9 ) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel for the parties, a short question that arises for our decision is whether the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstance of the case and the evidence laid before the Court, would be condemned as perverse for want of legal evidence. ( 10 ) ANNEXURE-D, resignation letter is a critical document for decision-making. It speaks volumes about the circumstance and the background in which the letter was procured by the Management. The Court while appreciating the document of the nature of Annexure D should not keep its commonsense in a cold storage. Annexure-D is a conditional resignation letter. The respondent in the said letter tells the management that if he fails to achieve the target of Rs. 12. 50 lakhs for the month of January, 1999, the Management may treat the letter as his resignation letter and relieve him from service. It is the specific case of the writ petitioner that the Management threatened him to achieve the target of Rs. 12. 50 lakhs turnover and if he could not achieve the target, he would be saked. In the circumstance, the petitioner had to sign such letter already prepared by the Management itself under coercion and threat and not out of his free will. The truth could not be shielded by the Management for long. The truth came out soon. 12. 50 lakhs turnover and if he could not achieve the target, he would be saked. In the circumstance, the petitioner had to sign such letter already prepared by the Management itself under coercion and threat and not out of his free will. The truth could not be shielded by the Management for long. The truth came out soon. In the relieving order, the Management in unmistakable terms states that the services of the respondent are terminated. If it was the case of the management that the writ petitioner had tendered resignation voluntarily and it only accepted the resignation and relieved him by the office order dated, 18. 02. 1999, the Management, in ordinary course, would have stated that the resignation of the respondent was accepted and he was relieved from the services. As if that is not enough, as could be seen from Annexure-E, the relieving order dated 18. 02. 1999, the Management sent a cheque along with the letter for Rs. 23,526 towards 3 months salary in lieu of three months notice. If the Management were to accept the resignation letter, there was no warrant or duty cast on the management to pay three months salary, in lieu of three months notice. That obligation would have arisen only if the Management terminated the services of the respondent on its own and that too without giving any notice to the respondent. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Annexure-D coupled with Annexure-E, if we examine them by commonsense-standard, they would clearly show that the resignation letter was procured by the Management under threat and coercion and the contention of the Management that the respondent voluntarily tendered his resignation on 19. 01. 1999, cannot be accepted as true. ( 11 ) EVEN after relieving the petitioner vide order dated 18. 02. 1999, the Management issued a general communication marked as Annexure-F dated 22. 02. 1999 addressing all the distributors and stockists in the State of Kerala. Here again, the Management informs all the concerned that it had terminated the services of the respondent with effect from 23. 02. 1999. Of course in Annexure-E, it has stated that it had relieved the writ petitioner on 18. 02. 1999 itself, whereas, in the communicator Annexure-F, it has asserted that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated with effect from 23. 02. 1999. 02. 1999. Of course in Annexure-E, it has stated that it had relieved the writ petitioner on 18. 02. 1999 itself, whereas, in the communicator Annexure-F, it has asserted that the services of the writ petitioner were terminated with effect from 23. 02. 1999. The inconsistency between the two documents is not explained by the Management of the Company. The commonsense would tell us that no prudent employee would give the kind of letter Annexure-D to the Management on his own and to his peril. Annexure-D itself clearly shows that the writ petitioner was very much interested in the employment, but he had to give such a letter because he was not in a position to achieve the target of Rs. 12. 50 lakhs during the month of January, 1999. Such a letter could never be regarded as the one given by the respondent by exercising his free will and volition. If the Management thought that non-achievement of the target of Rs. 12. 50 lakhs by the respondent would disentitle him to continue in service, it could have taken appropriate steps in accordance with Rules and Regulations governing his appointment and terminated his services. Obviously, such a course was not open to the Management under the Rules and Regulations and therefore, it had adopted the unethical method of coercing the respondent to give the letter agreeing that if he could not achieve the target, that letter itself could be treated as resignation letter. In the premise of these established facts and circumstances of the case, we cannot take any exception to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. No case is made out of our interference. ( 12 ) THE three judgments cited by the Learned Counsel are the binding authorities to state that this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226, generally speaking, does not undertake investigation of disputed facts for decision-making. But, here is a case, where the documents of the management themselves clearly show the unethical method adopted by the Management in procuring the resignation letter from the respondent vide Annexure-D. Further, Annexures-E and F, which are the letters/communications of the Management, would fully support the case of the respondent that the Management terminated his services without his consent. ( 13 ) THE writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs, quantified Rs. ( 13 ) THE writ appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed with costs, quantified Rs. 3,000/- payable to the respondent within two weeks. --- *** --- .