Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 456 (GUJ)

Harisinh Gulamsinh Cudasma v. State Of Gujarat

2024-03-06

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the order of acceptance of resignation dated 29.10.2015 passed by respondent No.3 and for issuance of direction to reinstate the petitioner in service. 2. Short facts of the present petition are that the petitioner appointed as Armed Police Constable on 21.03.2001 and joined the service and training and he was transferred from Patan to Rajkot and after initiation of departmental inquiry, the petitioner was dismissed from the services. The petitioner had filed Special Civil Application No.4978 of 2009 for reinstatement him on service and, thereafter, he was reinstated in service and resumed his duty. It is the case of the petitioner that after reinstating in service, he was suffering from back pain and taking treatment and, therefore, he requested the respondent – authority to give him work in the office of LIB as he is studied upto LL.B (Special). That due to mental harassment and torture, the petitioner has given resignation and, thereafter, he made a representation to respondent No.3 and requested to orderly room considering his sickness, however, the respondent No.3 has not considered the representation and, thereafter, the respondent – authority has sanctioned his resignation. Hence, the present petition is filed. 3. Heard Mr.Hardik Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State Authority. Perused the material on record. 4. Mr.Hardikh Shah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Armed Police Constable and he joined service and, thereafter, he was transferred from Patan to Rajkot. He has submitted that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and he was dismissed from the service and, thereafter, he had preferred Special Civil Application No.4978 of 2014 and though he was reinstated in service, he resumed his duty. He has submitted that since the petitioner was suffering from back pain, he requested respondent No.3 to give him work in office of L.I.B. and he has tendered his resignation, however, under such circumstances, he made representation for cancellation of resignation before accepting his resignation by the Government, he wrote a letter for withdrawal of his resignation, however, the same came to be rejected. He has submitted that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the respondent – authority be quashed and set aside. 5. Ms.Dharitri Pancholi, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State Authority has opposed the present petition. She has referred to and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3. She has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Armed Police Constable and joined the services and after completion of training he was serving at Patan. She has submitted that Since, the petitioner wanted to resign from the service, he tendered resignation without any force or compulsion and the same was accepted. She has submitted that the petitioner had made a request for withdrawal of the resignation, but the same came to be rejected as per the Gujarat Civil Services General Condition of the Services Rules. She has submitted that in the resignation, the petitioner has specifically stated that if this resignation is not accepted he will take steps to take judicial resources available under the law. She has submitted that the petitioner had never made any complaint to his superior with regard to harassment by his colleague. She has submitted that there is no reasons to reconsider his case as once the resignation has been accepted and affected the same cannot be reconsidered and, therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent – authority is just and proper. She has submitted that the petition being meritless deserves to be dismissed. 6. This Court has considered the submissions canvassed by learned counsel appearing for the parties and the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent – authority and the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears from the material on record that the petition is filed by the petitioner on the ground that since he was medically unfit and, therefore, he moved the respondent – authority with resignation letter and medical certificate issued by Shyam Orthopedic Hospital and Trauma Centre dated 29.06.2015 and relying upon such medical certificate, the petitioner has tendered resignation on 18.08.2015 as he is not fit to work as Armed Police Constable. Thereafter, after about two months, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent – authority requesting that either he may provide light work in the office or he may give an opportunity to hear after hearing the petitioner, the respondent may accept the resignation tendered by him. Thereafter, after about two months, the petitioner wrote a letter to respondent – authority requesting that either he may provide light work in the office or he may give an opportunity to hear after hearing the petitioner, the respondent may accept the resignation tendered by him. It appears that after considering details, respondent – authority has subsequently accepted the resignation in 2015 and now almost nine years has been passed after acceptance of the resignation, the petitioner sought either to give an opportunity of hearing with regard to allocation of the light work or posting him in the office of LIB, I am of the opinion that now the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief as his resignation is already accepted in light of the medical certificate submitted by him before the respondent – authority. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, now nothing remains in the mater and, therefore, I am of the opinion that the present petition is devoid of merits and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated forthwith. There shall be no order as to costs.