VED PRAKASH AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 27.2.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.2/Bank accepting the resignation submitted by the petitioner on 7.9.2004 vide Annexure P-1 with effect from 11.3.2006.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner entered in the service of respondent No.2/Bank on 1.10.1982 and was given various assignments to deal with. On 7.9.2004 he submitted an application to the Chairman of the Bank seeking voluntary retirement with effect from 6.2.2005 or 15.9.2005 or as per its own discretion. On 1.7.2005 the petitioner again submitted the second resignation but it was withdrawn by him on 30.8.2005 vide Annexure P-2 mentioning the family problems to be the reason there-for. Further case of the petitioner is that on 25.12.2005 vide Annexure R-9 he submitted an application seeking voluntary retirement which he withdrew on 23.2.2006 stating that he wished to retire in the year 2016 i.e. the year of his superannuation.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.2.2006 the order impugned (Annexure P-4) has been passed accepting the resignation of the petitioner with effect from 11.3.2006 ignoring the fact that earlier he had withdrawn his resignation letters and therefore his application dated 7.9.2004 (Annexure P-1) could not be acted upon and that the order impugned has been passed just to get rid of the petitioner taking advantage of his so-called pending application dated 7.9.2004. He submits that once the petitioner had submitted the second application for withdrawal of resignation on 1.7.2005, the first application becomes ineffective. Moreover, when the second application dated 1.7.2005 was withdrawn by the petitioner on 30.8.2005 and then again on 25.12.2005 vide Annexure R-9, he tendered his resignation and withdrew the same on 23.2.2006 vide Annexure P-3. He submits that resignation of the petitioner dated 7.9.2004 has been accepted by the Bank on 27.2.2006 i.e. almost one and a half year after submission thereof which is nothing but an arbitrary action on the part of respondent/Bank especially when they were well aware of the subsequent applications submitted by the petitioner tendering his resignation and then withdrawing the same. He submits that resignation letters of the petitioner being conditional cannot be termed as resignation letters in its true sense and that being so the respondent No.2 /Bank should not have taken any action on his application dated 7.9.2004. Counsel for the petitioner thus submits that the order impugned is liable to be quashed and petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages. He placed his reliance on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matter of Dr. Prabha Atri v. State of U.P. and others, 2003 1 SCC 701, in the matter of K.L.E. Society v. Dr. R.R. Patil and another, 2002 5 SCC 278and in the matter of Srikantha S.M. v. Bharath Earth Movers Ltd., 2005 8 SCC 314. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the respondent/Bank was aware of the subsequent development in particular two subsequent applications being submitted by the petitioner seeking voluntary retirement and then withdrawn by him, being a noble employer it should have clarified from him before passing the order impugned as to whether he wished to continue in service or not.