Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 1468 (PAT)

Rakhi Kumari v. State Of Bihar

2013-12-17

NAVIN SINHA, SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA

body2013
ORDER NAVIN SINHA, J. The present Appeal arises from order dated 14.03.2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 4418 of 2013. The learned Single Judge held that once resignation was submitted and it was deemed to have been accepted after expiry of the stipulated time provided in the circulars, the questions of withdrawing the same did not arise. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it was her specific case that the resignation had not been submitted voluntarily but circumstances were created by respondent no. 9, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat and his brother respondent no. 10 where she was left with no option but to submit her resignation for her own safety and security and that of her husband, unable to bear the repeated torments and humiliation being held out by them. She had lodged a complaint case against the physical assault made upon her by respondent no. 9 registered as SC/ST P.S. Case No. 08 of 2012. A written representation regarding threat to her security and her husband was submitted before the DIG on 22.04.2012. Her husband was falsely implicated in Belaganj P.S. Case No. 18 of 2012 as was apparent from the supervision note that the allegations were not true. Regular obstructions were being created in discharge of duties by her as an Anganwari Sevika by respondent nos. 9 and 10. The language of her resignation letter makes it apparent that it was not a voluntary act of her volition but had been submitted under coercion and threats. This aspect of the matter has not been considered by the learned Single Judge at all. The authorities should have taken steps to allay her fears and problems rather than seizing the opportunity for removing her on basis of her request which virtually amounts to a termination without reasonable cause, even if she was an Anganwari Sevika only. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and 8. It acknowledges registration of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 08 of 2012. 4. The counter affidavit by respondent no. 6, Dy.S.P. acknowledges that chargesheet has been submitted against respondent no. 10 in the SC/ST case. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Investigating Officer has requested for further investigation against respondent nos. 9 and 11. 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. 4. The counter affidavit by respondent no. 6, Dy.S.P. acknowledges that chargesheet has been submitted against respondent no. 10 in the SC/ST case. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Investigating Officer has requested for further investigation against respondent nos. 9 and 11. 6. We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The institution of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 08 of 2012 and the subsequent chargesheet against one of the respondents lends credence to the submission on behalf of the Appellant that her resignation letter was not a voluntary act but was obtained by threat and coercion creating a situation and circumstances where she was left with no other option for her and her husband’s security. We further find that the counter affidavit of the Dy. S.P. is completely silent on the representations submitted by the Appellant on 22.04.2012 to the D.I.G as mentioned in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. It is apparent from the counter affidavit that the process for fresh selection was still continuing after the resignation of the Appellant had been accepted, but no fresh appointment has been made. 7. The submission on behalf of the State authorities that the re-appointment of the Appellant may be considered against any future vacancy does not appeal to us. If the selection process has not culminated in a fresh appointment on a vacancy created by the Appellant vacating her post and she stands reinstated, the selection process becomes infructuous. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio laid down in 1990 BBCJ 149 (N.P. Rao v. Tata Iron & Steel Co.Ltd.) that such a resignation in fact amounts to a termination fully applies to the facts of the present case. 9. The order under Appeal is therefore set aside. The letter of the Appellant dated 14.05.2012 is held to be not one of resignation but virtually of termination by creating circumstances where she was compelled to resign by coercion and threat. 10. The order under Appeal dated 14.03.2013 is set aside. The Appellant stands reinstated as an Anganwari Sevika. The Appellant shall also be at liberty to proceed against the concerned under relevant laws for the harassment and torment meted out to her. 11. The Appeal is allowed.