SUNIL THAKUR Vs. HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is filed invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the acceptance of the resignation dated 03/ 10/05 Annexure - P/1 and the rejection of the request for withdrawal of the resignation vide letter dated 13/10/05 (Annexure - P/2).

(2.) It is the case of petitioner that he had joined the respondent Corporation as Officer trainee on 09/01/89 and confirmed with effect from 09/01/90, he was promoted up to the Officer Grade - C. As per order dated 09/09/04 and posted as Executive Operation Officer LPG Bottling Plant at Indore. Petitioner has submitted his resignation on 23/09/05 addressed to General Manager LPG as per Annexure - P/4, due to insufferable humiliation and harassment at the hands of the respondents. It is further stated that the Corporation has framed their Service Rules, having application to all the officers including petitioner and published in the Personal Manual of the Corporation, the rule 11.1 (iii) deals resignation. The petitioner has received the information through the Executive Director LPG by a registered letter accepting of his resignation Annexure - P/1 dated 03/10/05. He has objected vide Annexure - P/6 dated 06/10/06 and said acceptance of the resignation was unlawful, invalid and against the Rules of the Corporation. It is contended that he has withdrawn his resignation, prior to expiry of notice period of one month; however, rejection thereof by the Corporation as per letter dated 13/10/05 Annexure - P/2 conveying to receive your that the cheques towards SBFS from the Plant Manager, LPG Plant Manual.

(3.) On 15/10/05 petitioner was intimated telegraphically by the Plant Manager LPG Bottling Plant Indore to collect his dues from the Office; however, by another letter dated 25/10/05 he had again asked to receive their dues, which was not responded by petitioner, therefore, a letter dated 09/11/05, along with three cheques were sent to him settling the terminal dues which were not encashed and an intimation has been given in this respect vide Annexure - P/7 and P/10. Petitioner has contended that as per the rules of Corporation, if any departmental enquiry was pending against the employee his resignation could not have been accepted if tendered without sanction by the authority competent to dismiss him. It is said, an enquiry was pending against him; however, without prior sanction acceptance of his resignation was not valid; thus, acceptance of his resignation is contrary to the rules. It is further contended that an employee of the Corporation may resign either by giving one month notice or by depositing one month salary. In the present case he has not deposited one month's salary; however, acceptance of his resignation prior to one month on 03/10/05 and communicated by the order impugned dated 30/09/05 is arbitrary and with utmost haste with the bias intention, therefore also, the acceptance of his resignation is arbitrary. It is also said, he has applied for withdrawal of resignation on 06/10/05, within one month, therefore, rejection thereof is illegal.