BRALINSTAR SADD Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case is that the petitioner was serving as UB Constable with the Meghalaya Police, and by letter dated 5th October, 2017 had tendered his resignation before the respondent authorities. The same was accepted vide the impugned letter dated 8th October, 2017. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a representation dated 7th March, 2018 with a prayer to withdraw the resignation and for reinstatement in service. As the same was not considered by the respondent authorities, the petitioner is before this Court by way of this instant writ petition.

(2.) Mr. H. Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the resignation was tendered on 5th October, 2017 the same was accepted without the 2 months mandatory notice period being allowed as stipulated in Rule 9 of the Police Act, 1861 and Rule 106 of the Assam Police Manual. As such, he submits, the acceptance of the resignation was illegal and in violation of provisions as contained in the Police Act and Assam Police manual. He further submits that the respondent authorities should have considered the prayer for reinstatement as the acceptance of the resignation was not done in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. H. Abraham, learned counsel for the petitioner to buttress his submissions has placed reliance in the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Shri Ranjeet Ch. Momin v. State of Meghalaya passed in WP(C. No. (SH. 182 of 2009 and in the case of Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal reported in AIR 1989 SC 1083 which he submits squarely cover the case of the petitioner. He finally submits that the writ petition be allowed and the petitioner be reinstated in service.