Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 874 (AP)

P. Gayathri v. Secretary & Another

2010-09-09

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2010
Judgment The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Dakshin Bharath Hindi Prachara Sabha, Khairathabad, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Sabha’), respondent No.1 herein, initially on daily wage basis in the year 1984. She was placed in a pay scale, with effect from 19.02.1998 and her services were regularized on 01.04.1990. Later on, she was promoted as Grade-I Clerk in the year 1995. The petitioner states that the Secretary of the Sabha has subjected her to humiliation, on several occasions. On 10.11.2003, a meeting of the staff took place. She alleges that the Secretary has insulted her before all the staff members and unable to bear it and out of emotion, she handed over, a letter of resignation to the Manager of the Office. The Secretary accepted the resignation instantly. The petitioner submitted a letter, dated 14.11.2003, withdrawing her resignation. The same was placed before the Board. However, through proceedings, dated 15.02.2004, the Board approved the action of the Secretary in accepting the resignation of the petitioner. The said proceedings are challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner contends that the resignation was not submitted to the Secretary at all and without even verifying from her, the Secretary accepted the same, soon after he received it from another employee. She contends that the competent authority to accept the resignation is only the Board and the Secretary is not conferred with the power to accept the resignation. It is further alleged that Regulation 20 of the Service Regulations of Prachara Sabha (for short ‘the Regulations’) stipulates that a notice of three months for a permanent employee is necessary and there is no provision for waiver thereof. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondents. It is stated that the petitioner submitted her resignation to one Sri T.V.S.Pandu Rangarao, Manager, General Department, who in turn, has forwarded to the Secretary and the resignation was accepted by the Secretary in anticipation of approval by the Board. It is stated that Regulation 20 of the Regulations has no application to the case of the petitioner, since it is voluntary resignation. The approval accorded by the Board is also mentioned. The further contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has since received various amounts on 27.03.2004 and as such, she cannot challenge the acceptance of the resignation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The approval accorded by the Board is also mentioned. The further contention of the respondents is that the petitioner has since received various amounts on 27.03.2004 and as such, she cannot challenge the acceptance of the resignation. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner entered the service of the respondents as a daily wage employee in the year 1984. Her services were regularized with effect from 01.04.1990 and she was promoted as Grade-I Clerk in the year 1995. She submitted a letter of resignation on 10.11.2003. She states that the resignation had to be submitted on account of the humiliation caused to her by the Secretary. It was accepted by the Secretary instantly in anticipation of approval by the Board. The petitioner submitted a letter of resignation, dated 14.11.2003, stating that she submitted the same out of emotion and that she intends to withdraw the same. Therefore, it needs to be seen as to whether there was valid acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner. The Sabha has its own Regulations that govern the service conditions of its employees. Regulation No.3 of the Regulations deals with the mode of appointment. The authority to appoint is the Executive Committee and the orders of appointment are to be issued by the Secretary, on approval by the Committee. Regulation 3-C of the Regulations reads as under: “All appointments, would be made by the Secretary basing on the recommendations of the Appointments and Promotions Committee and the acceptance of the Executive Committee. The appointments between S.Nos.3 to 5 Classes, would be made by the Secretary on the acceptance of Official Committee. Keeping in mind the requirement, the Secretary appoints on the written permission by the Chairman and later with the recommendation of the Appointments and Promotions Committee, he takes the acceptance of the Executive Committee in the next meeting.” Another Regulation, which is relevant for the purpose of this case, is the one dealing with the termination of services, be it at the instance of the employee or the organization. Regulation 20 of the Regulations reads as under: Notice of leaving Service: (a) If any employee of the Sabha wishes to leave service on his own behalf, he should give a notice of three months if he is a permanent employee and of one month if he a temporary employee, in the same way Sabha also gives a notice of three months to terminate permanent employees and one month for temporary employees. (b) Violation of this rule, entities a candidate to repay the salary and conveyance for the stipulated period as compensation. In the same way, if the violation of rule is caused by the Sabha, the Sabha too will pay compensation to the employee. (c) In avoidable circumstances, the compensation from the employee can be waived partially or totally as per the orders of the Executive Committee. Even according to the respondents, the petitioner handed over the letter of resignation to a Manager and not the Secretary. A perusal of the letter of acceptance, dated 10.11.2003, discloses that he availed the earliest opportunity and lost no time in accepting the resignation. It reads as under: “In the above-mentioned order, the letter received from Smt.P.Gayatri, Staff, Office Division, is being considered. In the above-mentioned letter, Smt.Gayatri has expressed her inability to perform work related to the office. Therefore, on the basis of Smt.Gayatri’s request, her resignation letter was accepted in the presence of the official committee and she had been relieved from the services of the Sabha from 12.30 noon of date 10.11.2003.” The manner in which the letter of resignation was received is mentioned in the counter-affidavit as under: The staff meeting was ended at 11.30 a.m. The petitioner received the transfer order transferred to Library Department and immediately after one hour 12.30 p.m., she has handed over a resignation letter to Sri T.S.V.Panduranga Rao, Manager, General Department without approaching the Secretary and left the Office.” As to the manner of acceptance of the resignation, the Secretary stated “it is submitted that R-1 has accepted the resignation letter of the petitioner as desired by her in anticipation of Executive Committee with the prior oral approval of the Ex-President”. A clear contradiction is noticed. A clear contradiction is noticed. In the proceedings, dated 10.11.2003, the Secretary stated that the letter of resignation was accepted in the presence of the official committee, whereas in the counter-affidavit, it is stated that he accepted it in anticipation of the approval of the Executive Committee. The so-called oral approval of the Ex-President is totally irrelevant. Whenever an employee submits resignation, the appointing authority, who is competent to accept the same, is required to ensure that the employee hands the same in person. A letter of resignation cannot be acted upon, unless it is handed over by the individual concerned. In the instant case, the petitioner did not hand over the resignation to the Secretary. Further, he is not the appointing authority. The sequence of events namely, passing of an order transferring the petitioner at 11.30 a.m., submission of a letter of resignation by the petitioner and acceptance of the same with effect from 12.30 p.m. on the same day, discloses that the then Secretary was after the petitioner. For all practical purposes, he provoked, if not forced her, to submit the resignation and having been successful in his effort, he accepted it in utter violation of law. His action is highly objectionable and deplorable. It has already been mentioned that the Executive Committee is the competent authority to appoint the employees and thereby, the authority to accept the resignation. Nowhere in the Regulations, the Secretary is conferred with the power to take any steps in anticipation. When he cannot appoint an individual in anticipation of approval by the Committee, the question of accepting the resignation in anticipation does not arise. At least, when the matter was brought to the notice of the Executive Committee, it ought to have been examined with reference to the relevant provisions of law. By the time the Executive Committee examined the matter in February 2004, the letter of withdrawal by the petitioner submitted hardly within three days from the date of submission of the resignation was there. The purport of the resolution said to have been passed by the Executive Committee is communicated vide notification, dated 15.11.2004, by the same Secretary. It only shows the dominant role played by the then Secretary, Sri Shirla Dhanamjayudu. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which he conducted himself and the way, the committee became his captive. The purport of the resolution said to have been passed by the Executive Committee is communicated vide notification, dated 15.11.2004, by the same Secretary. It only shows the dominant role played by the then Secretary, Sri Shirla Dhanamjayudu. This Court takes serious exception to the manner in which he conducted himself and the way, the committee became his captive. Regulation 20 of the Regulations mandates that an employment with the Sabha can be brought to an end either at the instance of the employee or Sabha by issuing a notice of three months in case of regular employees and notice of one month in case of temporary employees. It is a matter of record that the petitioner is a permanent employee. The termination of services at her instance could have been brought about, only by delivery of notice of not less than three months. There is no provision under the Regulations for waiver of this requirement. Therefore, the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner is totally untenable and cannot be sustained in law. The mere fact that the petitioner received some of the benefits cannot take away her right. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.M.Srikantha Vs. M/s.Bharath Earth Movers Limited 2005 (8) SCC 314 . As in the present case, there also, a letter addressed by an employee out of frustration on account of his being not assigned any work, was accepted immediately. The difference is that while in the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the competent authority accepted the resignation, in the instant case, it is not so. The Hon’ble Supreme Court undertook extensive discussion covering the purport of the Board resignation, the scope of relevant rules and the law laid down in the binding precedents. It was ultimately held that the action of the respondent in that case in accepting the resignation was illegal and unlawful on finding that the letter was submitted by the employee out of emotion. Reference was made to the judgment in Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K.Mittal 1990 SCC (L&S) 143. The Service Regulations of the Bank provided for a notice of three months be given either by the employee or by the management. However, there existed a provision for waiver of that condition, which does not exist in the Regulations of the Sabha. Reference was made to the judgment in Punjab National Bank Vs. P.K.Mittal 1990 SCC (L&S) 143. The Service Regulations of the Bank provided for a notice of three months be given either by the employee or by the management. However, there existed a provision for waiver of that condition, which does not exist in the Regulations of the Sabha. The letter of resignation submitted by an employee of the Bank was accepted before expiry of the period stipulated in the notice. The Supreme Court observed as under: “We are of the opinion that Clause (2) of the regulation and its proviso are intended not only for the protection of the bank but also for the benefit of the employee. It is common knowledge that a person proposing to resign often wavers in his decision and even in a case where has taken a firm decision to resign, he may not be ready to go out immediately. In most cases, he would need a period of adjustment and hence like to defer the actual date of relief from duties for a few months for various personal reasons. Equally an employer may like to have time to make some alternative arrangement before relieving the resigning employee. Clause (2) is carefully worded keeping both these requirements in mind. It gives the employee a period of adjustment and rethinking. It also enables the bank to have some time to arrange its affairs, with the liberty, in an appropriate case, to accept the resignation of an employee even without the requisite notice if he so desires it. The proviso in our opinion should not be interpreted as enabling a bank to thrust a resignation on an employee with effect from a date different from the one on which he can make his resignation effective under the terms of the regulation. We, therefore, agree with the High Court that in the present case the resignation of the employee could have become effective only on or about April 21, 1986 or on June 30, 1986 and that the bank could not have ‘accepted’ that resignation on any earlier date. The letter dated February 7, 1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction.” The case on hand stands on a better footing, inasmuch as Regulation 20 of the Regulations of the Sabha does not provide for waiver of the requirement of notice of three months. The letter dated February 7, 1986 was, therefore, without jurisdiction.” The case on hand stands on a better footing, inasmuch as Regulation 20 of the Regulations of the Sabha does not provide for waiver of the requirement of notice of three months. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The respondents shall forthwith reinstate the petitioner. They shall also pay back wages to her, in case she files a letter to the effect that she was not gainfully employed in any other organization, in the meanwhile. She shall also be entitled for the benefit of continuity of service. It shall be open to respondent No.1 to recover the amount paid to the petitioner towards back wages and costs, from its former Secretary, Sri Shirla Dhanamjayudu, by issuing notice to him.