SANJIVKAR SHANTIKAR CHRISTIAN Vs. COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the decision taken by the respondent and communicated to the petitioner by one telegram on llth September, 1989 refusing to accept the petitioner's resignation from service tendered on 9/08/1989,

(2.) The facts giving rise to this petition move in a narrow compass. The petitioner was at the relevant time working as Deputy Mamlatdar at Mahuva (District : Surat) under the respondent. On the ground of his illhealth he tendered his resignation from service on 9/08/1989. He gave therein one month's notice for its acceptance. He wanted his resignation to be effective from 9/09/1989. A copy of his resignation letter is at Annexure 'A' to this petition. As transpiring therefrom, he submitted his resignation through his immediate superior, that is, the Mamlatdar at Mahuva. As transpiring therefrom, the Mamlatdar at Mahuva sent his resignation to the respondent on 9th August, 1989 itself. As further transpiring from the resignation letter at Annexure 'A' to this petition, it appears to have been received in the office of the respondent on 10/08/1989. It appears that nothing was heard till 8/09/1989 with respect to the resignation letter at Annexure 'A' to this petition. The petitioner thereupon gave one application on 8/09/1989 to the Mamlatdar at Mahuva praying for his release from service with effect from 9/09/1989 as the notice period for his resignation came to an end on 9/09/1989. It appears that one telegram was received by the petitioner from the respondent informing that his resignation was not accepted due to pendency of some enquiry against him. That telegram appears to have been delivered on llth September, 1989. Its copy is at Annexure 'C' to this petition. It appears that, thereupon, the petitioner made representation to the respondent on 12/09/1989 requesting him that he ought to be considered as relieved with effect from 9/09/1989 as the notice period for his resignation expired on 8/09/1989. A copy of his representation of 12/09/1989 is at Annexure 'D' to this petition. It appears that thereupon the respondent passed one order on 13/09/1989 to the effect that the petitioner's resignation could not be accepted as some enquiry is pending against him and that the period of his notice expired on 10/09/1989. A copy of the order of the respondent passed on 13/09/1989 is at Annexure 'E' to this petition. It appears that the petitioner thereafter addressed one representation to the respondent on 22/09/1989 indicating that he received no reply from the respondent with respect to his representation of 12/09/1989. A copy of his representation of 22/09/1989 is at Annexure 'G' to this petition. He issued further reminder thereto on 7/10/1989. Its copy is at Annexure 'H' to this petition. It appears that thereupon the respondent issued one memo on 16/10/1989 indicating therein that the petitioner's resignation could not be accepted as some enquiry was pending against him and the period of notice was to expire on 10/09/1989 and that the petitioner was given a telegraphic intimation of the non-acceptance of his resignation on 9/09/1989. A copy of the memo of 1 6/10/1989 is at Annexure 'I' to this petition. It appears that the petitioner thereupon made representation on 19/10/1989 against the memo at Annexure '1' to this petition. A copy of his representation of 19/10/1989 is at Annexure 'J' to this petition. It appears that he heard or received nothing from the respondent in response to his representation at Annexure 'J' to this petition. He thereupon caused to serve one notice to the respondent through his Advocate on 26/12/1989 calling upon the respondent to accept the petitioner's resignation at Annexure 'A' -to this petition. A copy of that notice is at Annexure 'N' to this petition. It appears that the respondent caused a reply thereto on 4/01/1990. A copy of the reply is at Annexure '0' to this petition. The petitioner has thereupon invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievance against non-acceptance of his resignation by the respondent.

(3.) In this connection it would be quite proper to look at Rule 33A of the Bombay Civil Services Rules, 1959 ('the Rules' for brief). Sub-rule (a) thereof enables a Government servant to resign from service by giving a notice of one month in writing to the appointing authority. Sub-rule (2) thereof is quite material for the purpose of this petition and it is therefore reproduced below :