D N RAMANA REDDY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Certiorari to call for the records relating to the Orders dated 22-7-1997 of the 5th respondent and also the Orders dated 3-12-1997 of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondents to accept the withdrawal of resignation submitted by the petitioner and allow him to continue in service of the Border Roads Organization (BRO).

(2.) It appears, petitioner on passing Union Public Service Examination in 1988 was appointed as Assistant Executive Engineer in the BRO. He joined the said Organization in May,1990 and was posted to 86 Road Construction Company (Projects), Swastik and after rendering considerable length of service in the said project, he was transferred to 1443 Bridge Construction Company (BCC) Project, Udayak . While working at 1443 BCC he had applied for leave from 30-4- 1996 to 10-6-1996 owing to some domestic/personal difficulties and came to his native place at Hyderabad. Though prior to proceeding on leave, 3rd respondent had called for willingness of the employees for being posted to BCC 1444 to which the petitioner did not opt, during the subsistence of leave, he was informed that he had been transferred to 1444 BCC Project, Udayak. Since he could not come out of personal problems, he had extended the leave for a further period of 30 days on 7-6-1996, but the respondents had sanctioned the said leave for only 20 days vide Telegram dated 15-6-1996. Since the domestic problems were not solved, he applied for extension of leave for 120 days on 26-6-1996 and requested the leave to be granted upto 26-10-1996 hoping that he would come out of his personal problems. However, the leave was not sanctioned and to this effect, a Telegram was sent by the Department on 18-7-1996. Apprehending that the leave would be refused on the ground that he extended the leave to avoid joining at 1444 BCC, he requested the Chief Engineer on 22-7-1996, to at least sanction leave upto 10-9-1996 promising to join anywhere on expiry of leave, so that he could join after clearing his personal problems. Even then, his request was not considered by the 3rd respondent. Further, respondents 3 to 5 started exerting pressure through several Telegrams and letters threatening disciplinary action. Petitioner was caught in a fix, just as between devil and deep sea and not knowing what to do, submitted his resignation on 28-7-1996 in utter confused state of mind. He considered that resignation would be lesser evil than the disciplinary action under the Army Act at that time. Out of frustration, he tendered resignation. On 3-8-1996 and again on 14-8-1996, he received communications from the 4th respondent stating that he must first report and then only the resignation letter would be considered. Further, a similar communication was also received from the 4th respondent on 20-8-1996. Respondents have also issued letters to his father and his wife as a part of procedure to be followed for initiating disciplinary action under the Army Act. However, in the meanwhile, the prolonged domestic problems have found solution on their own accord. Therefore, immediately on 2-12-1996 he sent a letter withdrawing the resignation dated 28-7-1996 through proper channel marking advance copies to respondents 1 and 2. He did this hoping that positive orders would be passed, as no orders of acceptance of resignation have been received till such date. As the matter stood thus, he had received a communication on 7- 1-1997 from the 5th respondent stating that the resignation submitted by him was accepted by the 4th respondent with effect from 1-11-1996. The said letter was dated 6-12-1996, which was despatched to him only on 1-1-1997, much after withdrawal of resignation. He was still awaiting that the authorities would pass sympathetic orders on the letter of withdrawal of resignation. Further, the 2nd respondent informed the petitioner on 5-2-1997 that the withdrawal of resignation letter was conditional and he should submit unconditional request for withdrawal of his resignation. A similar communication was also received from the 3rd respondent-Chief Engineer herein on 13-2-1997 advising him to make unconditional withdrawal of resignation. He replied on 24-2-1997 to the authorities stating that withdrawal of his resignation never made on any condition and even otherwise, it may be treated as unconditional one. Thus, he further waited for favourable orders from respondents to accept his withdrawal of resignation and allow him to join duty. However, to his utter surprise, 5th respondent passed an Order rejecting withdrawal of resignation, which was received by him on 22-7-1997 quoting Rule 26(4)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1972. Aggrieved by the same, he had appealed to the 1st respondent to consider his case sympathetically and accept the withdrawal of resignation and allow him to join duty. Respondent No.2, however, stated that his resignation was accepted much prior to his withdrawal letter dated 2-12-1996 i.e. on 1-11-1996 and rejected the appeal by an Order dated 3-12-1997. Challenging the said orders, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioner. At paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter, it is asserted as under: