HARI OM GOEL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India involves a question whether a communication sent by the employee, by which he unilaterally purported to resign from his service from a future date and the acceptance of it by the employer can estops the petitioner from withdrawing the voluntary resignation before the expiry of notice period from which the resignation was intended to be effective?.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Building Supervisor in the institute of respondent, No. 2 on 19.9.1983. He was thereafter promoted in the pay scale of Rs. 2,000.00-60.00- 2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500 w.e.f. 5.8.1993; that the petitioner because of the constant harassment volunteered to give notice of one month relinquishing his office from a future date: that the petitioner vide notice dated 15.9.1997 expressed his desire of relinquishing the office resigning from the service of respondent No. 2 w.e.f. 15.10.1997; that thereafter the respondent accepted the notice dated 15.9.1997 seeking voluntary retirement by the petitioner and communicated the acceptance of resignation bycommunication dated 24.9.1997, which was received by the petitioner on 3.10.1997; that thereafter on 10.10.1997 the petitioner sent a communication withdrawing his resignation and the same was received by the respondent on 13.10.1997. The petitioner was relieved from his duties w.e.f. 15.10.1997 for which a relieving order was issued by respondent No.3 on 15.10.1997, which is challenged in the present petition.

(3.) It has been submitted by Mr. Sreekumar, learned counsel for the petitioner that by notice dated 15.9.1997, the petitioner sought voluntary retirement/resignation w.e.f. 15.10.1997; that thereafter the petitioner sent another communication dated 10.10.1997 withdrawing his resignation, which was sent vide communication dated 15.9.1999 before the resignation would come into effect i.e. before the effective date of 15.10.1999; that the respondent received the said communication on 13.10.1997 but ignoring the petitioner's withdrawal of resignation vide letter dated 10.10.1997, issued relieving order w.e.f. 15.10.1997, which is illegal; that the respondent could not have issued relieving order dated 15.10.1997 ignoring the withdrawal of resignation vide letter dated 10.10.1997 much before the effective datei.e.15.10.1997 since it was open to the petitioner to withdraw the resignation.