KUMAR ABHAY Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question of law that arises for consideration in this petition filed by an employee of the bank is whether the resignation letter of the petitioner was unilateral or bilateral and whether its acceptance by the competent authority was necessary, if so its effect?

(2.) The petitioner after selection was appointed as clerk cum cashier in the Union Bank of India in 1986. When he was posted in Ujiyar branch Ballia he fell ill and was on leave for many months. On 5.6.1993 he resigned from service. The letter is neither traceable nor filed. It admittedly did not reach the bank. The petitioner, therefore, sent another letter on 16.7.1993 requesting the authorities to accept his resignation as he was still not well. This letter was replied by the Zonal office of the bank on 3.8.1993 informing the petitioner that the branch office has informed that the dues mentioned in the letter were outstanding against him which may be cleared to enable the bank to initiate further action on the resignation letter of the petitioner No further action was taken and the petitioner on 30.5.1994 withdrew his resignation as he was well and was willing to join duty either at Allahabad or Ujiyar. This letter was replied by the bank on 29.7.1994 informing the petitioner that the process of accepting the resignation could not be initiated as the dues had not been cleared and the petitioner was advised to pay the amount. Further the request of withdrawing resignation could not be accepted at that stage. The bank wrote another letter on 17.11.1994 advising the petitioner to clear the dues. The letter mentioned that after expiry of one month from notice the resignation stood provisionally deemed to have been automatically considered and it was in his interest to pay the amount to enable the bank to accept it finally. Another letter was sent by the bank on 18.10.1994 informing the petitioner either to clear the dues or give written undertaking to the bank to adjust it from his terminal benefit to enable it to finally accept the resignation. The letter repeated that it was not possible to accept the request for withdrawing the resignation. The petitioner again retariated that he may be permitted to resume his duty. Finally, on 22.10.1994 the bank accepted the resignation of the petitioner from service of the bank subject to adjustment of dues.

(3.) The petitioner has challenged the two letters dated 12.8.1994, 18.10.1994 and the order dated 22.10.1994. Sri Yogesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, has relied on the decisions of the apex court in P. Kasilingam v. P.S.G. College of Technology, Raj Narain v. Smt. Indira Nehru Gandhi, and Raj Kumar v. Union of India and urged that the petitioner having withdrawn the resignation before its acceptance, the respondents could not take any action on it. On the other hand Sri Vijay Ratan Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents relied on Moti Ram v. Param Deo and urged that resignation being spontaneous relinquishment of his right, the resignation took effect immediately. He further relied on Punjab National Bank v. P.K.Mittal and urged that the resignation became effective after expiry of one month.