JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge The petitioner has prayed a direction to respondent - bank to re-engage him on the same position and post from the date of his termination/writing resignation. The petitioner has also claimed ` 50,000/-as compensation for mental harassment caused by respondents to the petitioner by forcing him to sign on two/three blank papers and thereafter using the same for writing his resignation. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as Peon (apprentice) in the respondent No. 1-bank. He joined as such on 17.8.2001 at Dharamshala on fixed wages ` 1800/- per month on the condition that he would be absorbed in the bank on the regular pay scale of the post subject to satisfactory apprentice period. 3. On 10.10.2001 the petitioner went to his native place and fell ill. He got himself examined at Community Health Centre, Gagret and the doctor advised medical leave to the petitioner from 15.10.2001 to 27.12.2001. The petitioner informed respondent No.2 about his serious illness through his wife on telephone. The petitioner received letter dated 7.12.2001 of respondent No.2 wherein unauthorized absence from duty of the petitioner has been stated. It was threatened that action will be taken against petitioner for his absence from duty. 4. The petitioner after recovery from illness went to his office to resume duty on 28.12.2001 but he was not allowed to join the duty. The medical certificate issued by the competent authority was not accepted by respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 asked the petitioner that in case he would sign two/three blank papers only then his joining will be accepted. The respondent No.2 obtained the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers. The petitioner did not understand its consequences. The respondent No.2 after obtaining his signatures on blank papers asked him to go home and he would be informed of the acceptance of his joining report in writing through post. 5. The petitioner did not receive any communication from respondent No.2 regarding acceptance of his joining. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No.2 to enquire into the matter and to his utter surprise, he came to know that the blank papers which were got signed from the petitioner were used to write his resignation and the petitioner was not allowed to join duties on the ground that he had already resigned on 28.12.2001. The petitioner went to the office of respondent No.2 to enquire into the matter and to his utter surprise, he came to know that the blank papers which were got signed from the petitioner were used to write his resignation and the petitioner was not allowed to join duties on the ground that he had already resigned on 28.12.2001. The respondent No.2 played fraud with petitioner by writing resignation of the petitioner. The petitioner is a poor man, it is not possible that the petitioner would resign after about 4 ½ months service. In these circumstances, the petition has been filed. 6. The respondents have contested the petition by filing reply and have stated that the petitioner was appointed as apprentice vide letter dated 7.8.2001 in the capacity of subordinate staff (Peon), he joined on 17.8.2001. As per the terms and conditions of the appointment letter, the petitioner had to deposit cash security worth ` 1000/- on joining the bank service. However, the petitioner was allowed to pay the same in monthly installments of ` 100/-. He was also required to furnish surety bond worth ` 10,000/-after joining bank service which he did not furnish. 7. The petitioner remained on duty upto 13.10.2001 till 2.00 P.M. and did not report for duty thereafter nor did he seek any leave/permission to leave the station. The petitioner submitted resignation on 28.12.2001 on account of his domestic circumstances, which was accepted on 28.12.2001. The petitioner on 28.12.2001 requested refund of security of ` 100/- which was refunded and paid to him on 29.12.2001 against voucher and receipt. On 29.12.2001 the petitioner requested to release his salary for the period 1.10.2001 to 13.10.2001 and accordingly an amount of ` 755/-was paid to petitioner on 29.12.2001 in view of acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner from service. 8. The petitioner has made false statements in the petition. It has been denied that the service of the petitioner was terminated. The medical certificate has been placed on record by the petitioner only through the present petition and only now the respondents have come to know about the alleged illness of the petitioner. The petitioner never submitted fitness certificate to the respondents. The petitioner has manipulated cock and bull story to gain sympathy. It is malicious on the part of the petitioner to suggest that respondent No.2 made him to sign on two-three blank papers. The petitioner never submitted fitness certificate to the respondents. The petitioner has manipulated cock and bull story to gain sympathy. It is malicious on the part of the petitioner to suggest that respondent No.2 made him to sign on two-three blank papers. The petitioner voluntarily resigned from the service. The respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition. 9. The petitioner has filed rejoinder in which he has reiterated his stand and denied the stand of the respondents. It has been alleged that the documents annexed by the respondents with the reply are after thought and manipulated. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Peon (apprentice) on 7.8.2001. It is not thinkable that a person, who has been appointed on 7.8.2001 would resign from the job on 28.12.2001. The petitioner fell ill, after recovery he reported for duty on 28.12.2001, his joining was not accepted on the ground that he will have to sign two/three blank papers, which he signed at the instance of respondent No.2, he was told that for his joining written communication would be given. He waited for some time but when no communication was received from respondents, the petitioner came and he was surprised to know that the signed blank papers were used for his resignation from service w.e.f. 28.12.2001. 11. It is not a case of resignation but a case of unauthorized termination of the services of the petitioner which is not in conformity with Chapter – 12. Rule 51 of the Himachal Pradesh State Cooperative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank and Kangra Cooperative Primary Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Employees (Terms of employment and working conditions) Rules, 1987 (for short Rules). The unauthorized absence for more than ten consecutive days or overstaying for more than fifteen days after the expiry of any sanctioned leave without sufficient cause is a major misconduct whereas absence without leave not covered under Rule 34 is a minor misconduct under the Rules. 12. It has been submitted that under Rule 53 (b) no punishment for ‘major misconduct’ shall be imposed on an employee unless he is proved guilty of major misconduct in an inquiry. Similarly, under Rule 53(c ), no punishment for ‘minor misconduct’ shall be imposed on an employee unless he is proved guilty of minor misconduct. 12. It has been submitted that under Rule 53 (b) no punishment for ‘major misconduct’ shall be imposed on an employee unless he is proved guilty of major misconduct in an inquiry. Similarly, under Rule 53(c ), no punishment for ‘minor misconduct’ shall be imposed on an employee unless he is proved guilty of minor misconduct. The suspension/termination and retrenchment is provided in Chapter – 13 of the Rules. The respondents have not followed the rules. The respondent No.2 wanted to adjust his nephew and he has made a plan to get rid of petitioner. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that cock and bull story has been made in the petition. The petitioner resigned and his resignation was accepted and his services were not terminated. It is a case of simple resignation and not of termination. 14. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that respondent No.2 wanted to adjust his nephew in the bank against the post of petitioner and, therefore, he made the plan to dispense with the services of the petitioner on one ground or the other. The officer who was holding the post of respondent No.2 at the relevant time has not been impleaded as party by name in the petition nor there is any specific allegation in the petition that the then respondent No.2 wanted to accommodate his nephew in the bank at the cost of the petitioner. 15. The respondents have placed on record Annexure R-1/2 resignation letter dated 28.12.2001 of petitioner on account of domestic reasons, which was accepted on 28.12.2001. The matter does not end here, there is another letter dated 28.12.2001 Annexure R-1/3 of petitioner requesting the Managing Director of the bank to refund his security of ` 100/-. The request of petitioner for refunding ` 100/-on account of security was accepted on 29.12.2001. On 29.12.2001 vide Annexure R-1/5 petitioner demanded salary of 13 days from 1.10.2001 to 13.10.2001, this request was accepted on 29.12.2001 and an amount of ` 755/-was ordered to be paid to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received ` 100/-on account of refund of security and ` 755/-on account of salary from 1.10.2001 to 13.10.2001. 16. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not received ` 100/-on account of refund of security and ` 755/-on account of salary from 1.10.2001 to 13.10.2001. 16. There are no pleadings in the petition that the then respondent No.2 for adjusting his nephew in the bank got prepared the Annexures R-1/2, R-1/3 and R-1/5, in absence of these allegations, it is not understandable why the then respondent No.2 would prepare Annexures R-1/2, R-1/3 and R-1/5. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him resigned from the job and pressed the respondent No.2 for acceptance of his resignation on 28.12.2001 which was accepted on 28.12.2001. He accepted the refund of security of ` 100/- and salary ` 755/-for the period 1.10.2001 to 13.10.2001. Lateron he realised that he should not have resigned but by that time it was too late. It is not a case of termination of services of the petitioner on account of disciplinary action, therefore, Chapter-12 and 13 of the Rules is not applicable. It is a simple case of resignation which was accepted by the employer on 28.12.2001, the petition was filed on 26.7.2002. This also indicates that the petition has been filed as an after thought. The petitioner has neither established his entitlement to damages nor he has proved anything to claim damages. There is no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.