RAJENDRA KUMAR CHOUKSEY Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the communication dated 28.11.2006 and 04.01.2007 (Annexure P-5 & P-6) by which the petitioner has been communicated that his resignation has already been accepted and that since the petitioner has not deposited a month's salary, the same is to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It is contended that the petitioner has obtained the leave for study but the said order of sanction of leave was cancelled. The petitioner was called upon to join on post again by such an order. He preferred W.P. No.9298/2004. However, since the petitioner was not in a position to join on the post, he tendered resignation. Earlier it was communicated to the petitioner that his resignation cannot be accepted. However, subsequently the said resignation was accepted and the representation made against such an order has been rejected, therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed. In response to the notice of the writ petition, return has been filed by the respondents and it has been categorically contended that vide order dated 18.05.1998 the petitioner was appointed on the post of Compounder and was posted in Sub Jail, Sihora, District Jabalpur. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of sanction to prosecute higher studies, which sanction was granted on 18.02.2003. But subsequently this order was recalled and the petitioner was directed to resume the duty. Instead of joining the duty, the petitioner submitted a letter of resignation vide Annexure R-8, which was placed before the competent authority for consideration and ultimately the same was accepted and order impugned was passed. Since after acceptance of the resignation, permission to withdraw the same could not have been granted, the representation of the petitioner was rightly rejected.

(2.) IT is true that once a resignation is submitted, either a month's notice is required to be given or a month's salary is required to be paid. However, merely because this is not done, it cannot be said that the authority was not competent to accept the resignation of the petitioner. Once the resignation is accepted, there remains nothing to be done in the said matter and permission to withdraw this resignation cannot be granted. In view of this, if the orders were passed by the respondents/authorities stating that once the resignation is accepted, the representation cannot be considered, no fault is committed by the respondents/authorities. The fact remains that the resignation was accepted not immediately after making of the same, therefore, it was not proper on the part of the respondents to direct recovery of one month's salary from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. Accordingly, in the order dated 28.11.2006 (Annexure P-6) the direction to this effect that a month's salary be recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue cannot be sustained. Such part of the order is quashed. However, the entire order of WRIT PETITION No.17501/2007 3 acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner is not to be interfered by this Court.