IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY WRIT PETITION NO.50662/2014(S-RES) BETWEEN:
S.D.MANOHARA S/O LATE S.R.DANKANACHAR, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O. SAJJANAKERE, J.N. KOTE POST, CHITRADURGA TALUK AND DISTRICT – 577 532 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.VENUGOPAL M.S., ADV.) AND:
1. KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD., BELAPUR BHAVAN, SECTOR 11, CBD BELAPUR, NAVI MUMBAI – 400 614 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR 2. ASSISTANT PERSONAL OFFICER KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD., SHIRVAD, KARWAR – 581 306 3. REGIONAL ENGINEER KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD., SHIRVAD, KARWAR – 581 306 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.OMKAR KAMBI, ADV. FOR NAIK & NAIK LAW FIRM FOR R1 TO R3 ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMUNICATION DTD 23.06.2014 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNX-A. DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL OF RESIGNATION DTD 26.5.2014 VIDE ANNX-M AND REINSTATE THE PETITIONER WITH ALL SERVICE BENEFITS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THIS DAY AFTER HAVING HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition being aggrieved of the communication dated 23.06.2014 bearing No.KR/KW/REN/STAFF/08 issued by the Respondent No.3 – Regional Engineer, Konkan Railway Corporation Limited, Shirvad, Karwar – 581 306 by which withdrawal of resignation was not accepted and decision accepting the resignation was stated to hold good.
2. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner submitted his resignation on 05.12.2013 to his job – Junior Engineer with the Respondent Corporation with a request to consider the same at the expiry of one month. The resignation was not accepted at the expiry of one month as mentioned in the resignation letter. The petitioner continued to work in the post as regular employee. On 15.04.2014 it was intimated that letter of resignation submitted by the petitioner was accepted with effect from 07.04.2014. The relieving date was not mentioned. On 17.04.2014 wife of the petitioner submitted letter to the first respondent requesting to cancel resignation and allowing petitioner to continue his services. On 10.05.2014 the respondent Corporation issued letter to the petitioner for reporting duty as the petitioner was absent from duty by obtaining casual leave for two days. The petitioner reported for duty on 19.05.2014. Again on 20.05.2014 wife of the petitioner submitted another letter requesting the Corporation to withdraw the resignation submitted by the petitioner.
3. The petitioner submitted letter on 26.05.2014 withdrawing the resignation submitted earlier. He has stated therein that in view of his work at Karwar, he had taken residence at Karwar on lease and joined his child to school there. Since the petitioner was not relieved from duties till the end of May, petitioner had to continue the lease and continue his child in the same school. In view of these changed circumstances, petitioner submitted letter on 26.05.2014 withdrawing the resignation submitted by him earlier. It is stated, head of his department orally communicated to the petitioner that his withdrawal of resignation is accepted. The petitioner was subjected to competency test to take charge of Engineering Block and competency certificate was issued declaring that he is competent to take Engineering Block by a certificate dated5.6.2014. On 23.06.2014 the petitioner received letter from the Corporation communicating that request of the petitioner for withdrawal of resignation is not accepted. The petitioner was relieved of his duties from 1.7.2014. By way of office order dated 15.07.2014 vide NE/25/2014 the Corporation officially relieved him from duties. Even though resignation was accepted on 15.04.2014, the petitioner was not relieved from duty and only relieved on 15.07.2014. His letter to withdraw the resignation was much earlier to his relieving order. Therefore, it is stated, rejection order is bad in law.
4. The respondents have filed statement of objections and also additional statement of objections denying the various averments made in the writ petition but admitting the fact that petitioner had submitted letter dated 26.5.2014 to withdraw his resignation letter, which is stated to be after acceptance of the resignation. The respondents wanted to assert certain things and tried to make out a case against the petitioner that his services with the corporation were not blemishless it is also admitted that petitioner was relieved on 01.7.2014 and issuance of official order to relieve him with effect from 15.7.2014 is not denied. This court is concerned with validity of the order communicating the petitioner that his letter to withdraw the resignation is not accepted and decision to accept the resignation holds good. Hence it is not necessary to record the other averments made in the statement of objections and as also in the additional statement of objections.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the impugned communication.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he submitted his letter to withdraw the resignation on 26.5.2014, the petitioner was relieved from his duties from 1.7.2014 and by office order dated 15.7.2014 the Corporation official relieved him from duties. According to the petitioner the “effective date” is 1.7.2014 or 15.7.2014 and accordingly his letter to withdraw the resignation was much earlier to it and therefore decision not to accept the letter to withdraw the resignation is bad in law. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon decision in ShambhuMurari Sinha vs., Project & Development India & another, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 621.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that letter submitted by the petitioner was after acceptance of the resignation and therefore the Corporation is justified in communicating its decision not to accept the letter to withdraw the resignation and decision accepting the resignation of the petitioner holds good. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following decisions:
(i) AIR 1969 SC 180 (Raj Kumar vs. Union of India.
(ii) 2014 (13) SCC 204 (Union of India vs., Hitender Kumar Soni.
(iii) 2003(5) SCC455 (North Zone Cultural Centre Vs., Vedapati, and (iv) 2001(1) SCC 158 (Union of India vs. T Parthasarathy (WC).
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In ShambhuMurari Sinha’s case referred to supra, it is held that the effective date is the date on which the employee is relieved, the withdrawal of resignation before that date, is permissible in law. Para-5 of the judgment is extracted, which is as follows:
“5. From the facts stated above, it would be seen that though the option of voluntary retirement exercised by the appellant by his letter dated 18.10.1995 was accepted by the respondent Management by their letter dated 30.7.1997, the appellant was not relieved from service and he was allowed to continue in service till 26.9.1997, which, for all practical purposes, would be the “effective date” as it was on this date that he was relieved from service. In the meantime, as pointed out above, the appellant had already withdrawn the offer of voluntary retirement vide his letter dated 7.8.1997. The question which, therefore, arises in this appeal is whether it is open to a person having exercised option of voluntary retirement to withdraw the said offer after its acceptance but before it is made effective. The question is squarely answered by three decisions, namely, Balram Gupta v. Union of India, reported in 1987 Supp SCC 228, J N Srivatsava v. Union of India, reported in (1998) 9 SCC 559 and Power Finance Corpn. Ltd., v. Pramod Kumar Bhatia, reported in 91997) 4 SCC 280, in which it was held that the resignation, in spite of its acceptance, can be withdrawn before the “effective date”. That being so, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside with the direction that the appellant shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. There will, however, be no order as to costs.”
9. In Rajkumar’s case referred to supra, reference was made to Para-5, relevant portion of which is extracted as below:
“5….But where a public servant has invited by his letter of resignation determination of his employment, his services normally stand terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and in the absence of any law or rule governing the conditions of his service to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Till the resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority in consonance with the rules governing the acceptance, the public servant concerned has locus paenitentiae but not thereafter. Undue delay in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation may justify an inference that resignation has not been accepted. In the present case the resignation was accepted within a short time after it was received by the Government of India. Apparently the State of Rajasthan did not, immediately implement the order, and relieve the appellant of his duties, but the appellant cannot profit by the delay in intimating acceptance or in relieving him of his duties.”
Here in the instant case, the resignation was not immediately accepted as sought for by the petitioner on expiry of one month. The resignation which was submitted on 5.12.2013 was accepted with effect from 7.4.2014. This was communicated to the petitioner on 15.4.2014 without a relieving date. The letter to withdraw the resignation was made on 26.5.2014. The petitioner was communicated rejection of his request to withdraw the resignation only on 23.6.2014. The petitioner was relieved on the basis of the said communication on 1.7.2014 and official order was issued on 15.7.2014. The above decision in Rajkumar’s case is based on delay in intimating the decision when the resignation was immediately accepted, which is not the situation in the present case. In the present case, the resignation was not accepted as sought for by the petitioner at the expiry of one month from 05.12.2013 and he was allowed to work till he was relieved only on 1.7.2014 with office order issued on 15.7.2014. Therefore, the facts of the present case are different and decision in Rajkumar’s case cannot be pressed into service to the present case.
10. In Hitender Kumar Soni’s case, referred to supra in which Para-7 is referred, which is as follows:
“7. The High Court, in a rather lengthy judgment, has considered a large number of judgments of this Court for recapitulating the well-established principles of law such as –normally, the tender of resignation becomes effective and the service or office tenure of the employee concerned stands terminated, when it is accepted by the competent authority. For this reference may be made to a judgment of a Constitution Bench in Union of India v. Gopal Chandra Misra, reported in (1978) 2 SCC 301, and that notice of voluntary retirement or resignation can be withdrawn at any time before it becomes effective.”
11. The effective date is date of relieving an employee and acceptance of resignation becomes effective, in the instant case, is 1.7.2014 with the official order issued on 15.7.2014 relieving the petitioner of his duties. Therefore, this decision in Hitender Kumar Soni isof no help to the respondents.
12. In Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar’s case, referred to supra, reference was made to Para-15, which reads as follows:
“15. In our opinion, both these grounds are unsustainable in law. This Court in Raj Kumar case held:
When public servant has invited by his letter of resignation the determination of his employment, his service normally stands terminated from the date on which the letter of resignation is accepted by the appropriate authority and, in the absence of any law or statutory rule governing the conditions of his service, to the contrary, it will not be open to the public servant to withdraw his resignation after it is accepted by the appropriate authority. Undue delay, in intimating to the public servant concerned the action taken on the letter of resignation, may justify an interference that the resignation had not been accepted.”
13. In the present case, the resignation which was submitted on 05.12.2013 with a request to accept it at the expiry of one month was stated to have been accepted only on 15.4.2014. There is undue delay in accepting the resignation by the respondents. In the above decision, the delay of mere 13 days in communicating acceptance of the resignation, is held to be not an undue delay so as to infer that resignation had not already been accepted. Therefore, the decision in Vedpathi Dinesh Kumar’s case is also of no help to the respondents.
14. In the circumstances, I am of the view that petitioner having submitted his letter dated 26.5.2014 seeking to withdraw the resignation much before the effective date, 01.07.2014 with official order on 15.7.2014 by which the petitioner was relieved of his duties, withdrawal of resignation ought to have been accepted by the respondents and continued the petitioner in service. The contrary decision by the respondents by the communication dated 23.6.2014 that withdrawal of resignation is not accepted and decision accepting the resignation stands good, is not sustainable in law. If resignation had been accepted with effective date mentioned therein, the things would have been different. In none of the decisions relied upon by the respondents, the effective date is dealt with.
Accordingly, writ petition succeeds. Writ petition is allowed. The Communication dated 23.6.2014 bearing No.KR/KW/REN/STAFF/08 issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A is hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential service benefits.
Sd/- JUDGE akd