AMRATLAL TALSIBHAI DESAI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for an appropriate writ, direction and/or order quashing and setting aside the order dated 20.2.1997 accepting the resignation of the petitioner though the petitioner has withdrawn the resignation before the effective date of the resignation.

(2.) It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner joined services as Store-Keeper with the respondent No.2 from 31.12.1981 and he worked as Store-Keeper till the interim order came to be passed. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he has taken active part in the union activities and was leader of the union of Class-III and Class-IV employees of the respondents and he was also the President of the union of Class-III and Class-IV employees of the respondent Corporation. That in the capacity of President of the union, he was required to see the management of the respondent No.2 ? Corporation so as to represent the grievance of the employees and in the course of such representation, he was subjected to undue pressure by the management of the respondent No.2 ? Corporation. That since he was not relenting to the undue pressure of the management, he was victimized and he was also placed under suspension under the flimsy ground. That the departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer was appointed on 7.10.1996 and the statement of the petitioner was also recorded before the Inquiry Officer on 7.1.1997. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner under frustration submitted his resignation vide communication dated 2.12.1996 and the petitioner informed the Executive Director that the charge-sheet served upon the petitioner is based upon no evidence. That the resignation of the petitioner was forwarded by the petitioner through proper channel i.e. Hydrologist of the Underground Water Division No.1, Ahmedabad and the said Hydrologist forwarded the said letter of resignation to the Executive Engineer vide its letter dated 2.12.1996. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that thereafter the petitioner was persuaded by all to succumb to the pressure and not to submit the resignation and was persuaded not to give-up his job and therefore, vide letter dated 6.1.1997, he withdrew the resignation. It is further submitted that in the said letter of withdrawal, he mentioned that on account of the family tie-up, the petitioner no longer is wanted to resign from the services and therefore, he withdrew the resignation. That the said letter was delivered by hand on 8.1.1997. That the respondents did not reply to the letter dated 6.1.1997 and it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that he was expecting that the communication of the petitioner was not accepted and the petitioner would be continued under suspension during the pendency of the departmental inquiry. That the petitioner received an order dated 20.2.1997 whereby, he was informed that his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 20.2.1997. That the said resignation was accepted with a condition that it would be subject to the result of the departmental inquiry. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid communication/ order dated 20.2.1997 accepting his resignation, the petitioner has preferred the present Special Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that before the acceptance of the resignation, the petitioner was having all rights to withdraw his resignation and as before the acceptance of the resignation, the resignation has been withdrawn and therefore, the impugned order/ communication on the part of the respondents in accepting the resignation w.e.f. 20.2.1997 is absolutely illegal. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of SRIKANTHA S.M. V/s. BHARATH EARTH MOVERS LTD. reported in (2005)8 SCC P.314, SHAMBHU MURARI SINHA V/s. PROJECT & DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. AND ANOTHER reported in (2002)3 SCC P.437 and in case of UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER V/s. WING COMMANDER T. PARTHASARATHY reported in (2001)1 SCC P.158 and therefore, it is requested to allow the present Special Civil Application.