YOGESH SHIVABHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has brought under challenge the impugned order of acceptence of resignation alleged to have been tendered somewhere in the year 1985 and/or 1986 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The inpugned order of acceptance of resignation is dated 20.12.1990, that is to say, it is passed after a lapse of about 5 years. The facts of the petitioner's case, shortly stated, are: The petitioner was appointed and serving as Civil Supervisor in the office of Executive Engineer (R & B), Vadodara. since 6th December 1976. The petitioner had an occasion to obtain No Objection Certificate for proceeding to U.S.A. and he in fact had an occasion to proceed to U.S.A. and after return from U.S.A to resume his duty as Civil Supervisor at Vadodara. It is the case of the petitioner that he was thereafter required to proceed on leave upto 20.6.1985 and was to resume duty on 21.6.1985. However, due to his illness he could not join duty between 21.6.1985 and 7.2.1986. As stated in his Application dated 7.2.1986 wherein he had pointed out the fact with regard to his ill-health. He submitted necessary medical certificates in that respect. He prayed for granting sick leave that was to his credit and for being allowed to resume duty. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not allowed to resume duty and that resulted in accelerating the tension on the petitioner's mind and that in turn resulted in the petitioner having had to under- go treatment of psychiatrist. It is the case of the petitioner that during this period when he was under the treatment of psychiatrist he had submitted the resignation from his service. Thus, according to his say he submitted his resignation from his service during the period of his mental disorder. After a span of about 4 years treatment the petitioner became fit to resume his duty and as such he submitted his application dated 22.1.1990 for withdawal of his resignation which was not accepted till that date and for resumption of duty. As per the communication dated 30.4.1990 the respondents demanded fitness certificate from a Civil Surgeon in order to enable further action on the petitioner's application being taken. The petitioner submitted appropriate fitness certificates as particularised in the petition. Inspite of the aforesaid facts the respondendts issued impugned order dated 22.12.1990 accepting the petitioner's resignation.

(3.) In the background of the aforesaid facts I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Katha Gajjar, learned A.G.P.for the respondents.