Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1536 (KAR)

Javali Gururajendra v. Managing Director, Ksrtc

2022-12-01

HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

body2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. The petitioner is an ex-service man and was appointed on 3/12/2003 as an Assistant Traffic Manager in the respondent-Corporation and when he was working as Assistant Traffic Manager, a criminal proceeding was initiated by the Lokayukta for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and simultaneously Departmental Enquiry was also initiated on the very same set of charges. 2. Such being the case, the petitioner submitted his resignation with the respondent-Corporation on 27/3/2008. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted on merits in the criminal proceedings initiated against him and he was also exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry conducted by the respondent-Corporation on 31/8/2012. 3. In the interregnum, the petitioner submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation on 8/3/2012. Respondent-Corporation thereafter accepted the resignation allegedly on 31/1/2013 and the same was intimated to the petitioner on 8/2/2013 stating that the resignation of the petitioner was accepted in view of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings as well as the Departmental Enquiry. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having withdrawn his resignation, respondent-Corporation is not justified in accepting the said resignation unilaterally and the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondentCorporation submits that the resignation of the petitioner was not accepted at the earlier point of time in view of the pendency of the criminal proceedings as well as the Departmental Enquiry and the same is inconformity with the circular dtd. 5/10/1990 issued by the Corporation which deals with the procedure to be followed in respect of acceptance of resignation. 6. He further submits that the petitioner having submitted the resignation and only after he was exonerated in the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings, sought to withdraw the resignation which clearly implies that the petitioner was the fence sitter and withdrawal of the resignation is an opportunist. 7. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Pending departmental enquiry and also criminal proceeding, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 27/3/2008 with the respondent-Corporation. The resignation of the petitioner was not accepted in view of the pendency of the Departmental Enquiry and also criminal proceeding. 7. I have examined the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Pending departmental enquiry and also criminal proceeding, the petitioner submitted his resignation on 27/3/2008 with the respondent-Corporation. The resignation of the petitioner was not accepted in view of the pendency of the Departmental Enquiry and also criminal proceeding. After the petitioner was exonerated on merits in the criminal proceeding, the petitioner submitted an application on 8/3/2012 for withdrawal of the resignation. The respondent- Corporation after the petitioner was exonerated in the Departmental Enquiry on 31/8/2012 accepted the resignation of the petitioner though the petitioner had submitted an application for withdrawal of his resignation. 9. The circular issued by respondent-Corporation which deals with the procedure to be followed in respect of acceptance of resignation specifies that wherever an enquiry or a criminal proceeding is pending, the resignation of the employee need not be accepted and the procedure to be adopted after withdrawal of the resignation specifies that where resignation has not become effective and the employee wishes to withdraw it, he may be permitted by the competent authority to withdraw the resignation. 10. In the instant case, the petitioner had submitted an application to withdraw his resignation and ignoring the same respondent-Corporation has unilaterally accepted the resignation which is contrary to the circular wherein it provides for an option to the employee to withdraw the resignation. 11. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.45133/2014 disposed of on 12/1/2021 with reference to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner therein was entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance and relieving the petitioner on its acceptance becomes contrary to law and would stand vitiated and the petitioner therein would be entitled to reinstate into service and further held that the petitioner therein was entitled to 50% backwages. 12. In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was entitled to withdraw his resignation before its acceptance as specified in the circular dtd. 5/10/1990 and relieving the petitioner on its acceptance is contrary to law and stands vitiated. The petitioner is out of employment since the acceptance of resignation and is entitled for the monetary benefits flowing out of the order of reinstatement, however with 50% backwages with effect from 8/2/2013. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dtd. The petitioner is out of employment since the acceptance of resignation and is entitled for the monetary benefits flowing out of the order of reinstatement, however with 50% backwages with effect from 8/2/2013. Therefore, I pass the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dtd. 8/2/2013 passed by respondent No.2- at Annexure-T is hereby quashed. ii. The respondent No.2-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and the petitioner is entitled for notional benefits flowing from the order of reinstatement, however with 50% backwages with effect from 8/2/2013. iii. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.