RAJESHWAR SINGH NEGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner took Civil Services Examination (CSE), 1993 and upon declaration of the result was allocated to CISF Group 'A' Service provisionally. The petitioner with an intention to improve his prospects took the permission from the DoPT to appear in the following Civil Services Examination, 1994, which was granted to him and resultantly, the petitioner was selected again and recommended for the appointment on the basis of 1994 results. Pending actual postings, the petitioner was asked to join National Industrial Security Academy(NISA) at Hyderabad for basic training of CISF Group 'A' officers commencing from 2nd January, 1995. The petitioner was sent for Foundation Course pending finalization of service allocation on the basis of his results of Civil Services Examination, 1994. Generally, the final service allocation is done by the DoPT, the nodal Ministry for CSE on the conclusion of the Foundation Course. Thus, all the candidates join the Foundation Course without knowing the final service allocation to which they may be allocated. After completion of 4 months of Foundation Course, the petitioner relinquished the charge. Thereafter, the petitioner joined National Industrial Security Academy (NISA) on 1st January, 1996. The petitioner proceeded on sanctioned leave w.e.f. 16th January, 1996 to 21st January, 1996. Due to illness, the petitioner was not able to join back at National Industrial Security Academy (NISA) after expiry of his leave. He sent a leave application along with medical certificate which, according to the petitioner, would be deemed to have been accepted in terms of Leave Rule 19 (3) as no refusal of leave was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner was also entitled to improve/change in allocation of service as this finalization of allocation continued up to March, 1996. The improvement option of the petitioner unfortunately did not materialize. Thus, the petitioner came to know in March, 1996 that he had not been allotted to any higher preference service and as such, his allocation to CISF would now become final. Faced with this situation, the petitioner wanted to exercise the option of resigning from his service and he submitted his resignation on 7th March, 1996, the copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure-P/7 to the Writ Petition. The resignation of the petitioner was forwarded to the DG/CISF through Director, National Industrial Security Academy (NISA), who forwarded the same by post as well as through wireless MSG No.1002 dated 22nd March, 1996 recommending its earlier acceptance. The petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the said letter as Annexure-P/8 on the Court file. According to the petitioner, at the time of his resigning he was neither offered any regular post of Assistant Commandant, CISF nor the petitioner had signed any agreement as required under the terms and conditions of his appointment. After the submission of the unconditional resignation by the petitioner, various communications were received from different Authorities by the petitioner directing him to deposit different amounts as a condition precedent for acceptance of his resignation. The petitioner submitted detailed replies to all these letters stating that as per the Rules, he was not required to deposit any amount as he had not been appointed to any post nor had he signed any agreement mandating any specific performance on his part as a condition precedent to acceptance of his resignation. The petitioner for all the period had not received any salary or remuneration from CISF Unit till the date of his resignation, i.e., 7th March, 1996. As the allocation process in the DoPT kept continued till March, 1996, the appointment letters were, in fact, issued by the DG,CISF only on 23rd April, 1996, i.e., nearly 2 months after the petitioner had submitted his resignation from the post. The petitioner wrote various letters to the respondents but of no avail and the respondents persisted with their demand. The petitioner claims that he did not receive any communication informing him that his resignation has not been accepted and that he should join his duties. The petitioner received a Memorandum dated 2nd March, 2000 on 11th April, 2000 stating that the petitioner was unauthorizedly absent. The said Memorandum reads as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_42_ILRDLH16_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) The petitioner submitted his detailed reply on 17th April, 2000 giving various facts and circumstances and also stating that he had not committed any misconduct and requested that his resignation be accepted and the proceedings against him be closed.

(3.) The respondents initially filed a short affidavit in September, 2003 stating that the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the enquiry report was sent to the petitioner at his residential address. The notices sent by the enquiry officer were returned with the remarks ?Refused to Receive Returned to Sender?. Whereafter the enquiry officer completed the enquiry report and submitted his report that the charge sheet and memorandum dated 2.3.2000 was received by the petitioner and he had submitted his reply.