STATE OF U P Vs. LAKHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) If voluntariness is the primary requirement in alt actions concerning a document which is termed as 'resignation letter', it should follow that the voluntariness should be explicit from the initial stage of writing of the said letter and extend to the voluntary action of tendering the same to the concerned authority or his agent.

(2.) The controversy in the instant writ petition shall be correctly answered if there be no confusion about the steps which have to be taken and things which may intervene between writing of it on the one hand and submitting the same on the other. In case it is found that there is absolute absence of any proof of voluntarily tendering of the resignation letter, the mere writing of it should never be taken to be a voluntary conduct of resigning from the post of the person concerned.

(3.) What has been stated above, is the outcome of all the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court whether it was the case of Raj Kumar v. Union of India. SCSR, Vol. 19, p. 396, or it was the case of Gopal Chandra Misra, (1978) 2 SCC 301 or it was the case of P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, AIR 1981 SC 789 or it was the case of J. K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Company Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, (1990) 4 SCC 27, or it was the case of State of Haryana and others v. Ram Kumar Mann, (1977) 3 SCC 321.