STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SRI JIRIMIYA PRASAD NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by the State with a prayer to quash the Judgment dated 20.6.2001 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 33 of 1996 under Annexure-3.

(2.) The brief fact, as delineated in the writ application, tends to reveal that the Opp. Party while working as a Writer Constable in Bolangir Police District his case was not considered for promotion despite his representation to the authorities, for which the Opp. Party vide letter dated 10.10.1980 tendered his resignation to the Superintendent of Police, Bolangir & requested him to accept his resignation. The resignation of the Opp. Party was accepted on 24.10.1980. Thereafter on 5.11.1980, the Opp. Party made a representation to the Inspector General of Police requesting him to restore him back in his service, which was refused by the authorities. Against the denial/refusal of the authorities to restore him in service, the Opp. Party approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 33 of 1996. Before the Tribunal, the Opp. Party took the aid of the provisions of Section 9 of the Police Act, 1861 & advanced an argument that he had withdrawn his resignation prior to expiry of 2 months & as such he should have been restored to service. The Opp. Party also alleged that the acceptance of his resignation before expiry of two months' period was illegal as it violated the mandate of Seotion-9 of the Police Act. The Tribunal after hearing Learned Counsel for the parties & relying upon the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. P.K. Mittal, 1989 AIR(SC) 1083, & the decision of this Court in the case of Satya Sundar Nayak & Kumuda Ranjan Mahaduk v. Industrial Development Corporation,1998 86 CLT 546, vide Judgment dated 20.6.2001 allowed the Original Application holding that the acceptance of registration was illegal in view of the principles enunciated in. the aforesaid cases.

(3.) The relevant portion of the Judgment of Satya Sundar Nayak (supra), which has been relied upon by the Tribunal & quoted in paragraph-10 of its Judgment, is also quoted herein below: