MUNASWAR HUSSAIN Vs. KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT COPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE legal heirs of one Munawar Hussain have preferred this petition and they have sought to assail the correctness of an award dated July 12, 1996. The brief facts giving rise to the controversy are that the deceased-petitioner who is now represented by his legal heirs namely the wife and minor children, was appointed as a Helper on November 3, 1971. The case made out is that he has put in approximately 13 years of service and that he had submitted his resignation on March 29, 1983 which was supported by a medical certificate making out the case that he was unfit to continue with his duties. The Corporation accepted the resignation on May 12, 1986. Long thereafter, in the year 1988 by virtue of the provisionsof Section 10 (4) (A) which werethen incorporated on the statute book, an application was filed for setting aside the order of the corporation accepting the resignation. The case made out was that the petitioner had by communication dated April 15, 1983 revoked or withdrawn the resignation submitted by him and that the Corporation had ignored this revocation and had acted on the basis of the original resignation. It was consequently contended that the termination which was by virtue of the resignation letter is bad in law, that it should be struck down and that the petitioner should be permitted to continue with his services with consequential benefits. By the time the case was taken up for evidence, the petitioner had died and his wife was examined as the solitary witness in support of the application. In her evidence she has stated that the petitioner was advised to withdraw the letter of resignation. That he had done so and that he had forwarded the revocation under certificate of posting to the Corporation and a receipt to that effect was produced. The copy of the resignation letter was not produced and on the other hand the Corporation vehemently contended that at no stage had the petitioner revoked the original letter of resignation, that the application is an afterthought and that consequently it should be dismissed.

(2.) I need to mention at this stage that the corporation did challenge the maintainability of the application, that even though it was filed within the prescribed period of six months from the date on which the, amendment had taken place that there was no proceeding alive as on that date and, therefore, it was not maintainable. The petitioner sought to contend that he had been making representations and appeals against the order and that these have not been disposed of and were pending and that therefore the application was in time. It was within the province of the Corporation to have checked its record and to have examined its officer who could have deposed to the effect that there were no applications or appeals pending but this was not done. It is rather characteristic of the very cavalier manner in which these departmental enquiries were being conducted and the equally off-hand manner in which the follow-up of cases was being looked after on behalf of the corporation at that time. It was principally because of this default that the lower Court entertained the application and on the state of the present record I do not propose to interfere with that finding.

(3.) AS far as the main issue is concerned, the petitioners learned advocate submitted that there is no reason why the evidence of the wife should be discarded. Secondly, he contended that the petitioner was alleged to have been habitually remaining absent from his duties and that he was facing disciplinary proceedings and that he relied on the corporations own circular which has been interpreted by my Brother G. PATRI BASAVANA goud, J. inw. P. No. 16659/ 1999. Learned counsel submitted that where a disciplinary proceeding is pending and an employee submits a resignation that it is not incumbent on the Corporation to apply its mind to the question as to whether the resignation should be accepted because it would have the effect of terminating the disciplinary proceedings. It was further submitted that in the absence of such an evaluation being done that the acceptance of the resignation during the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings will have to be struck down by this Court as it is a serious breach of procedure.