Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2048 (RAJ)

Devi Dayal Gupta v. Sambhar Salts Limited

2008-09-02

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, NARAYAN ROY

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Under challenge in this appeal is the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 27-4-2007, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order of the respondents, accepting his resignation was dismissed. 2. The appellant joined the services of the respondents on 21-3-1990 having been appointed as Manager (Production) on probation for a period of two years. Initially, the period of his probation was extended in three spells for a period of one year, but ultimately his services were confirmed w.e.f. 21-9-1993. The appellant was eventually promoted on the post of Senior Manager (Technical) with effect from 3-2-2005. He was entrusted with the additional charge of General Manager (Works), Sambhar with effect from 10-1-2006. 3. Bone of contention between the parties is about the production figures which according to the respondents were manipulated by the appellant so much so that the Chief Vigilance Officer after inspection of Sambhar Salts Ltd. at Sambhar on 17-3-2006 advised the Chairman & Managing Director (for short - 'CMD') of the company by his confidential letter dated 21-3-2006 that the appellant was involved in the anti-management activities and was planning to manipulate the production figures on a lower side with a view to show the position of the company and its CMD. According to respondents, appellant deliberately delayed submission of figures related to production and work in progress (for short - W.I.P.) as on 31-3-2006, despite repeated tele- communications by the corporate office. Ultimately, when he submitted such figures, he intentionally lowered down the figures of WIP and submitted the figures much less than the actual figures, directly to the Board of Directors, falsely alleging that he was being pressurised by the corporate office to make the artificial entries so as to show higher figures of WIP. He while submitting the performance report of the company on 3-4-2006 also submitted his resignation with the complaint that he was being forced to submit false figures. On receipt of resignation and complaint dated 3-4-06, the Joint Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises, Department of Heavy Industry, New Delhi by his letter dated 3-4-06 constituted a committee comprising of Head of Finance and the Vigilance Officer of the Company to send the factual position. The CMD was also advised not to presently take any action on the resignation letter, till the matter was further examined. The CMD was also advised not to presently take any action on the resignation letter, till the matter was further examined. The said committee submitted its report on 6-4-2006 inter alia observing that the performance figures of Pan Edges and WIP are prepared by the respective Circle Officers and the figures advised by the appellant are on much lower side and as per observations of the technical expert, the WIP is also considered on lower side by 20000 MT to 25000 MT. The Joint Secretary, Government of India on receipt of the report of the committee, advised the CMD to take action in the matter of resignation submitted by the appellant as per the relevant rules. The CMD by his order dated 19-4-06 accepted the resignation of the appellant with effect from afternoon of that day and directed him to be relieved accordingly. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 5. Shri A. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the target for production of Salt of the Sambhar Salts Ltd. at Sambhar Lake, Nawa and Gudha for the financial year 2005-06 was fixed at 2.20 lakhs MT, but the actual production was assessed and found to the tune of 1.90 lakhs MT plus 47,800 MT salinity in terms of WIP Saline water, which is yet to become salt and lying in the crystallizer, condensers and reservoirs, is measured by arithmetical calculation and is referred to as WIP. The appellant was required to convey such figures on 1-4-2006 and accordingly he informed correct figures to CMD on telephone. However, he was not allowed to communicate such figures in writing and instead, he was pressurised to communicate the figures of WIP to the tune of one lakh MT. This was not possible for the appellant because the records maintained by the G.M. (Works) Office at Sambhar Lake and communicated to the corporate office of the company at Jaipur from time to time and reports of assessment made and recorded in writing by the Circle Officers of the company were different. He could not, therefore, submit the figures to the CMD recording imaginary and unreal figures so as to falsify the records. CMD, Financial Advisor and General Manager (Technical) of the company then visited Sambhar Lake and had meetings with the appellant as also the Circle Officer concerned separately and jointly on 1-4-2006. He could not, therefore, submit the figures to the CMD recording imaginary and unreal figures so as to falsify the records. CMD, Financial Advisor and General Manager (Technical) of the company then visited Sambhar Lake and had meetings with the appellant as also the Circle Officer concerned separately and jointly on 1-4-2006. It could not be agreed between them to revise the actual figures of WIP as desired by the CMD. The appellant was then called to Jaipur office on 3-4-2006 and was informed that CMD wanted him to revise the figures of W.I.P. Appellant was frustrated to the extent that he found himself in a precarious and embarrassing position. He could not thought of any other way out but to desist the CMD from his stand to get the figures of production of WIP revised as per the whims against the factual record. In the circumstances, the appellant submitted his conditional resignation dated 3-4-2006 from the services of the company with an intention to prevent the falsification of accounts believing that the CMD will desist from his undue pressure for revising the figures of WIP at least on appellant's taking the extreme step of submitting his conditional resignation and would not insist for showing false figures. The letter of resignation was provoked on account of his unfair, wrongful and arbitrary insistence. 6. Shri A.K. Shukla referring to the contents of the letter of resignation submitted that the contents of letter itself speaks about the pressurising circumstances under which the appellant was forced to submit his conditional resignation from the services of the company with immediate effect by enclosing therewith a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of one month's notice in deep anguish, resentment and out of acute frustration intending to prevent the falsification of records, balance sheet and profit and loss account. It is submitted that the appellant had also separately endorsed copies of the conditional resignation letter to Joint Secretary in the concerned Ministry and to the Director of the respondent-company. The Joint Secretary immediately sent a fax message to the respondents not to take any action on the resignation letter till the matter was further examined and copy of such fax was also endorsed to the appellant. The appellant thereupon addressed a letter to Shri A. Didar Singh, Joint Secretary on 5-4-2006 and sent the same to him by fax. The Joint Secretary immediately sent a fax message to the respondents not to take any action on the resignation letter till the matter was further examined and copy of such fax was also endorsed to the appellant. The appellant thereupon addressed a letter to Shri A. Didar Singh, Joint Secretary on 5-4-2006 and sent the same to him by fax. Referring to this letter, Shri A.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tenor of this letter would also indicate that the appellant had expressed sense of gratitudes to the Joint Secretary for taking action on his complaint and also expressed the hope that he will get justice from his gracious hands. At the same time, the appellant resented the action of the committee in not associating him with the enquiry which merely permitted the appellant to give his resignation. He also objected to Shri O.P. Jain, F. A. being made member of the Committee. He requested for being relieved of the additional charge. The appellant was then transferred to his original post of Senior Manager (Technical) vide order dated 7-4-2006 and the additional charge of the post of G. M. (Works) was withdrawn from the appellant. The committee submitted its report but the copy of the report was not provided to the appellant. However, the CMD of the company and the respondents acting in an unfair, unjust, unreasonable and arbitrary manner accepted the resignation of the appellant without any opportunity of hearing to him. Letter of the appellant merely meant to be a complaint and when the Joint Secretary of the Government acting on such complaint, directed for enquiry, it subserved its purpose and now no longer remained a letter of resignation which fact is further fortified from the tenor of the subsequent letter dated 5-4-06 addressed to the Joint Secretary. Learned counsel submitted that this was done on account of biased attitude of Shri K. Ponnuchamy, CMD who presently himself was under suspension on account of being caught red handed for taking bribe of Rs. 50,000/- from a civil contractor on 31-3-2007 by Central Bureau of Investigation. Since the appellant had no other source of income and was out of job for long, he received payment of his gratuity under protest. The action of the respondents in relieving the appellant in the facts of the case tantamounts to removal rather than accepting his resignation. 50,000/- from a civil contractor on 31-3-2007 by Central Bureau of Investigation. Since the appellant had no other source of income and was out of job for long, he received payment of his gratuity under protest. The action of the respondents in relieving the appellant in the facts of the case tantamounts to removal rather than accepting his resignation. Learned counsel in support of his arguments relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003(1) SCT 251 : AIR 2003 SC 534 , P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541 , Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, AIR 1989 SC 1083 , judgment of Bombay High Court in Kilburn Engineering Ltd. v. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. & Anr., AIR 2000 Bombay 405 , judgment of Delhi High Court in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking v. Tara Chand, 1978(2) SLR 425. 7. Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel appearing for the respondents on the contrary submitted that the letter of resignation dated 3-4-06 submitted by the petitioner did not contain any condition for its acceptance. The appellant never expressed any such intention of withdrawing the resignation asserting that he did so under the fit of anger and actually had no intention of resigning. Initially, when the Ministry advised the CMD to defer the decision till enquiry into the matter was made, the enquiry was allowed to proceed but Enquiry Officer did not find any substance in the complaint of the appellant. The Ministry then advised CMD to take decision on the letter of resignation as per rules. The appellant was allowed to make his submissions before the inquiry committee though it was not mandatory, but nevertheless the committee found that there was no substance in the complaint made by the appellant in its resignation letter dated 3-4-06 and that the appellant deliberately delayed the submission of production figures. After the appellant was relieved of his duties from 19-4-06, he applied for payment of his terminal benefits which were paid to him. Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel for the respondent disputed that the appellant had accepted terminal benefits under protest. In fact, his protest was confined only to 10% less amount of payment of gratuity which was subsequently paid to him. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the company against acceptance of his resignation. Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel for the respondent disputed that the appellant had accepted terminal benefits under protest. In fact, his protest was confined only to 10% less amount of payment of gratuity which was subsequently paid to him. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the company against acceptance of his resignation. Even though there is no provision for such an appeal, the same was however placed before the Board of Directors and the appellant was granted opportunity to appear before the Board to explain his case in person. After detailed deliberations, the Board also dismissed this appeal in its meeting held on 19-8-2006. 8. It was argued that in the letter of resignation the appellant did not mention any future date for acceptance of his resignation nor has he been relieved prior to such specified date. In fact, in the letter, it was stated that the resignation should be accepted with immediate effect and in support his intention to quit the job immediately, the appellant had even enclosed the cheque amounting to Rs. 15,000/- being one month's notice pay so that his resignation could be accepted immediately. The cheque however was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds. Shri Rajendra Arora, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellant had earlier also applied for voluntary retirement vide letter dated 26-1-2006, which however, he later withdrew vide application dated 1-3-2006. The appellant is in a habit of litigation. When he was transferred to Kharagoda in Gujarat vide order dated 24-1-1996, filed writ petition, which was dismissed single Bench of this Court and thereafter his appeal was also dismissed by the Division Bench. He was also awarded a penalty of censure vide order dated 1-5-01. Shri Rajendra Arora in support of his arguments relied the judgments of Supreme Court in Union India & Ors. v. Binod Bihari Behera, 1996(1) SCT 743 : 1996(1) CLR 590 , State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997(3) SCT 135 : 1997(1) CLR 829 , Bank of India & Ors. v. O.P. Swarnakar & Ors., 2003(4) SCT 787 : (2003)2 SCC 721 . 9. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and the material forming part of the record and also care studied the cited precedents. 10. v. O.P. Swarnakar & Ors., 2003(4) SCT 787 : (2003)2 SCC 721 . 9. We have given our earnest consideration to the rival submissions and perused the impugned judgment and the material forming part of the record and also care studied the cited precedents. 10. The consideration of the record transpires that in the middle of the letter submitted by the appellant dated 3-4-06, the appellant tendered the resignation with immediate effect enclosing therewith the cheque of Rs. 15,000/- as notice pay, but question that requires consideration by this Court is whether this letter can be stated as a letter of resignation simpliciter or was it couched in such language that would make it more in the nature of a complaint. Since everything would depend on the tenor of the letter, we deem it appropriate to reproduced the letter aforesaid in extenso : "April 3, 2006 The Chairman & Managing Director, Sambhar Salts Limited, JAIPUR Dear Sir, Sub : Tendering of resignation from Company's services with immediate effect I have to submit that every year on the close of financial year, the actual production of salt along with pan edges and W.I.P. is given and accordingly as usual, the same were to be given on the Accounts Department and Commercial Section of the unit on the 1st April, 2006. The same were prepared after consultation of the concerned manufacturing circles based on the factual position and record on 1st April, 2006 morning and were under final stage and on enquiry over phone by Shri O.P. Jain, F.A. & G.M. (Accounts) also holding the additional charge of General Manager (P&A) and also to Shri D. Shukla, O.S.D. Corporate Office, idea of these figures with tentative WIP was given to them. However, over phone, they were adamant to increase the figures of WIP to the extent of 1 lakh MT, which was not the actual position in the kyars. CMD asked me to give production figures of 2,21,000 MT including pan edges and 70,000 MT WIP to match the figures to 2,90,000 MT. The same was not agreed and it was conveyed by both of them that they both alongwith CMD are coming to Sambhar in the afternoon and advised me to ask all the manufacturing circle officers to remain present as they will take a meeting with them. The same was not agreed and it was conveyed by both of them that they both alongwith CMD are coming to Sambhar in the afternoon and advised me to ask all the manufacturing circle officers to remain present as they will take a meeting with them. In the afternoon, all mentioned above visited Sambhar and first Shri Jain and Shri Shukla took a meeting with me and asked me to increase the WIP as mentioned above. I submitted that the WIP being informed by the undersigned is on factual position. Then they took a meeting directly with the concerned manufacturing circle and pressurised them in this regard. They also took a further meeting with them at Circuit House when the CMD was also present and they were further pressurised to increase the same and request the GM (W) to intimate the increased WIP. It is submitted that it is not at all possible to give the fictitious figures in the interest of the Company which are not based on the record and position. Working condition is not conducive, workable with honesty, in view of above pressurised condition, it has become difficult to work in the interest of the Company and independently, honestly and efficiently and in such circumstances, I am left with no other alternative except to tender my resignation from Company's services with immediate effect. I request you to kindly relieve me from Company's services with immediate effect. In lieu of notice period of one month, I enclose herewith a cheque No. 723535 dated the 3rd April, 2006 for Rs. 15,000/-. (Rupees fifteen thousand only) towards advance against one month salary. However, I enclose herewith a letter No. 2-GM(W)/2005/22 dated the 3rd April, 2006 giving the actual production as on 31st March, 2006, pan edges and WIP based on the record and factual position for your information and further necessary action. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (D.D. Gupta) Sr. Manager (Tech) Corporate Office, Jaipur (Additional charge of General Manager (Works), Sambhar Salts Limited, Sambhar Lake)" 11. The appellant endorsed copies of the aforesaid letter of resignation to Director, who was the nominee of the Government, on the Board of Directors of the respondent-company and the Joint Secretary in the concerned Ministry. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (D.D. Gupta) Sr. Manager (Tech) Corporate Office, Jaipur (Additional charge of General Manager (Works), Sambhar Salts Limited, Sambhar Lake)" 11. The appellant endorsed copies of the aforesaid letter of resignation to Director, who was the nominee of the Government, on the Board of Directors of the respondent-company and the Joint Secretary in the concerned Ministry. The Joint Secretary received the letter in earnest and directed an enquiry into the matter by constituting a committee to go into the allegations of the appellant "of being pressurised to change the factual figures regarding performance at Sambhar Salts." The Joint Secretary by his fax message dated 3-4-06 stated that this was an extremely serious matter and that he would like to be immediately send a report in the matter by a two-member committee and he also advised the CMD to presently not take any action on the letter till the matter has been further examined. A copy of said direction of the Joint Secretary dated 3-4-06 was also endorsed to the appellant and on receipt thereof he wrote back to the Joint Secretary on 5-4-06 in the beginning of which he stated as under : "I am highly thankful to your kind honour for taking immediate action on my letter dated the 3rd April, 2006 addressed to the CMD, Hindaun Salts Ltd., Jaipur with copy of your honour also. I believe that I shall receive justice from your precious hands." 12. It was thereafter that the appellant stated that the Committee did not conduct the enquiry in a fair manner and that he had also submitted the complaint regarding pressurising and influencing the manufacturing circle officers into submitting false figures against Shri O.P. Jain, FA and GM (Accounts), who was one of the members of the Committee and that the Committee permitted him to merely give his written statement. He expressed the apprehension that the Committee might not submit the correct report but in the concluding part, the appellant requested that in these circumstances, it was not possible for him to look after the work of GM (Works), Sambhar Lake. It appears that prompted by that request of the appellant, the additional charge of G.M. (Works) was withdrawn from him w.e.f. 7-4-2006. It appears that prompted by that request of the appellant, the additional charge of G.M. (Works) was withdrawn from him w.e.f. 7-4-2006. Regardless of the fact that whether there was any substance in the allegations made by the appellant or whether the Committee constituted by the Government submitted a correct report as to the figures or the statistics, the conclusive facts that emerge out from the aforesaid circumstances are that the appellant raised certain grievances and demanded an enquiry complaining about the pressure and submitted that working condition was not conducive and in view of pressurising conditions, it was difficult for him to work in the interest of company independently, honestly and sincerely and in these circumstances, he had no option to tender his resignation with immediate effect. When the enquiry was ordered with direction to the CMD not to take any action on the letter of resignation, the appellant immediately thereafter in his letter dated 5-4-06 wrote back to the Joint Secretary, Government of India that he was grateful to him for taking immediate action on his letter and that he believed that he shall get justice and lastly he requested that it was not possible for him to look-after the additional work of G.M. (Works). It was thereafter that the additional charge was taken back from the appellant. 13. The Supreme Court in Dr. Prabha Atri, (supra) considered a case where the appellant was working as Anesthetist in Government Hospital. She was suspended on charge of leaving hospital without informing any one at crucial time. The authorities by letter asked him to submit explanation stating that if she did not respond, the hospital would be at liberty to proceed against her as per rules. She did not respond and thereafter she was placed under suspension in contemplation of departmental enquiry. In response, she explained in writing that she always worked in the best interest of patients and if lenient view is not taken and if the authorities opted to punish her by accepting her explanation, then she would have no option left but to tender resignation with immediate effect. The Government authorities treated this to be her resignation letter and accepted the same. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the High Court. The Government authorities treated this to be her resignation letter and accepted the same. Aggrieved thereby, writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the High Court. In those facts, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the letter submitted by the appellant in that case could not be construed to convey any spontaneous intention to give up or relinquish her office accompanied by any act of relinquishment. To constitute a resignation, it must be unconditional and with an intention to operate as such. It was held that the authorities have seized an opportunity to get rid of the appellant, the moment they got her letter of resignation without due or appropriate consideration of the matter in the right perspective or understanding the contents thereof. 14. In P.K. Ramachandra Iyer, (supra) the Supreme Court had the occasion to consider the contents and nature of the letter written by one of the petitioners in that case who after stating in the letter that he has all along been patiently waiting for redressal of his grievances, yet justice has not been done to him and "as such, after showing so much patience in the matter, I am sorry to decide that I should resign from the membership of the Faculty in protest against such a treatment and against the discrimination and victimisation shown to me by the Head of the Division in the allotment of students of 1968 and 1969 batches and departmental candidates." In that context, the Supreme Court observed that this reflected the callous and heartless attitude of the Academic Council in seizing an opportunity to get rid of him by treating the said letter to be a letter of resignation when really he was all along making representation seeking justice to him and "out of exasperation the said person wrote that letter stating that the only honourable course left open to him was to resign rather than suffer." 15. In Moti Ram v. Param Dev & Anr., 1993(3) SCT 206 : (1993) 2 SCC 725 : ( AIR 1993 SC 1662 ) , the Supreme Court has observed as under : "As pointed out by this Court 'resignation' means the spontaneous relinquishment of one's own right and in relation to an office, it connotes the act of giving up or relinquishing the office. It has been held that in the general juristic sense, in order to constitute a complete and operative resignation there must be the intention to give up or relinquish the office and the concomitant act of its relinquishment. It has also been observed that the act of relinquishment may take different forms or assume a unilateral or bilateral character, depending on the nature of the office and the conditions governing it. (See : Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, ( AIR 1978 SC 694 ). ) If the act of relinquishment is of unilateral character, it comes into effect when such act indicating the intention to relinquish the office is communicated to the Competent Authority. The authority to whom the act of relinquishment is communicated is not required to take any action and the relinquishment takes effect from the date of such communication where the resignation is intended to operate in presanti. A resignation may also be prospective to be operative from a future date and in that event it would take effect from the date indicated therein and not from the date of communication. In cases where the act of relinquishment is of a bilateral character, the communication of the intention to relinquish, by itself, would not be sufficient to result in relinquishment of the office and some action is required to be taken on such communication of the intention to relinquish, e.g. acceptance of the said request to relinquish the office, and in such a case the relinquishment does not become effective or operative till such action is taken. As to whether the act of relinquishment of any office is unilateral or bilateral in character would depend upon the nature of the office and the conditions governing it." 16. The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, (supra), was considering a case wherein a letter of resignation was couched in somewhat similar language in which the employee had made a very long representation raising a series of grievances and complaint against his immediate superiors alleging that he was being victimised and ill treated by them be cause he out of loyalty to the Undertaking stood in the way of their benefiting by mal-practices and corrupt practices at the cost of the Undertaking. The employee requested that he may be transferred to some other station and if that was not done, he under protest, due to cruel behaviour and unfair terms of the officers, was being compelled to resign, Labour Court after examining in detail the circumstances in which this letter came to be written and accepted and especially considering the language of the letter, held that it was only letter of complaint and not of resignation, but the single bench of the High Court reversed that view. In those circumstances, the Division Bench in para 9 of the judgment observed as under : "It is a cardinal rule of interpretation that a document should be read as a whole and the meaning of last sentence should be appreciated in the context of the whole letter. Perusing the letter carefully, it appears to us that there are several passages which show that it was not a resignation letter. At the outset, we may point out, the employee prepared as many as nine copies to various officers which is more consistent with a letter of complaint than one of resignation." 17. The judgment of Supreme Court in Binod Bihari Behera, (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents is distinguishable on facts because that was a case in which the question was as to whether DIG, C.I.S.F. was competent to accept the resignation. O.P. Swarnakar & Ors., (supra) again was a case in which altogether different issue was decided by the Supreme Court and it was held that employer-employee relationship continued till the employer accepted the offer of the employee. It was a case which arose out of Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 2000 floated by Punjab National Bank in which the application submitted by the employee was considered to be an offer, which could be accepted and rejected by the Bank and it was held that those, who had accepted the ex-gratia payment or any other benefit under the scheme, could not later resile therefrom because the scheme was contractual in nature. Ram Kumar Mann, (supra) also was a case decided in altogether different fact situation wherein the employee resigned from the post for contesting election to State Legislature Assembly, which was accepted and thereafter he sought to withdraw his resignation. Ram Kumar Mann, (supra) also was a case decided in altogether different fact situation wherein the employee resigned from the post for contesting election to State Legislature Assembly, which was accepted and thereafter he sought to withdraw his resignation. The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that resignation letter of three other similarly circumstanced employees was allowed to be withdrawn. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and observed that doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right and since the employee had no right whatsoever and as such cannot be granted the relief wrongly given to others. In the present case, we are satisfied that principles of law enunciated by Supreme Court in Dr. Prabha Atri and P.K. Ramachandra Iyer (supra) would apply to the controversy raised in the present matter on all its four corners. 18. Whether or not the grievances raised by the appellant were justified and the enquiry report submitted by the committee was correct, the letter of resignation was required to be read and construed as a whole. Expression of intention by the appellant to resign in the middle part of the letter was required to be appreciated in the context of the whole letter. Reading the letter dated 3-4-06 carefully makes it clear that in fact the appellant had shown his strong resentment against pressurising him to submit such figures of WIP, which according to his perception, were not correct and that when he did not agree, the CMD, FA and GM (Accounts) and OSD corporate office pressurised him to do so. Once an enquiry into the matter was directed by the Joint Secretary, this letter subserved its purpose and outlived the utility and this could thereafter no longer be treated as a letter of resignation. Mere fact that the appellant thereafter did not withdrawn the letter of resignation or did not express any intention to the contrary in writing before the resignation was actually accepted on 16-4-2006 would not make any difference. This is because even if the matter is examined from another angle that the appellant submitted the resignation with immediate effect and also enclosed therewith a cheque of Rs. 15,000/- in lieu of notice pay, neither the resignation was accepted with immediate effect, nor was the said cheque encashed which according to the respondents themselves was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. 15,000/- in lieu of notice pay, neither the resignation was accepted with immediate effect, nor was the said cheque encashed which according to the respondents themselves was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds. Moreover, the tenor of the letter dated 5-4-06, which was written by the appellant within two days of submitting his letter of resignation on 3-4-06 makes it clear that the appellant did not intend to relinquish the services, but while expressing his gratitude to the Joint Secretary for directing enquiry only requested for being relieved of the additional charge and it was accepted. The respondents could not thereafter on the basis of the letter dated 3-4-06 relieve the appellant from their services. The aforesaid letter of resignation submitted by the appellant was a result of frustration borne out a idea, which may have been otherwise erroneous or unfounded that he was being pressurised into submitting false figures. Mere use of the words "with immediate effect" in the letter could not be given undue importance because the context and tenor of language used and remaining portion thereof indicated the circumstances in which it was written. Mere receipt of the amount of gratuity by the petitioner, which he withdrew under protest to sustain himself as he had no other source of income, would not validate the action of the respondents, which on scrutiny has been otherwise held to be illegal. 19. In the facts of the case, therefore, we are satisfied that the respondents have merely seized an opportunity to get rid of the appellant which they got from the letter date 3-4-06. Merely because the enquiry report by the committee in its finding reported and figures submitted by the appellant were not correct, would not determine validity of the action of the respondents. Even if the appellant was subsequently provided an opportunity of hearing by the Board of Directors against the acceptance of his resignation also would not validate the decision of the respondents in accepting the so called resignation of the appellant. It is though another matter that the appellant had in his letter dated 5-4-06 which he sent to the Joint Secretary objected about the association of Shri O.P. Jain as a member of the enquiry committee against whom he alleged in the letter dated 3-4-2006 that he was also one of those who pressurised him into giving bogus figures 20. It is though another matter that the appellant had in his letter dated 5-4-06 which he sent to the Joint Secretary objected about the association of Shri O.P. Jain as a member of the enquiry committee against whom he alleged in the letter dated 3-4-2006 that he was also one of those who pressurised him into giving bogus figures 20. The acceptance of resignation of t appellant by order dated 19-4-06 in the facts of the case would therefore amount to removal, which, being arbitrary, unreasonable illegal, is violative of not only Sambhar Salts Limited (General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1974, but also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 21. In the result, this appeal is allowed and consequently the impugned judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed. The order dated 19-4-2006 accepting the resignation of the appellant is quashed and set aside and the appellant is held entitled to reinstatement in service with consequential benefits. 22. Compliance of the judgment be made within one month from the date of copy of the judgment is produced before the respondents.Appeal allowed. *******