SADHAN DATTA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was a Medical Officer in Grade-III of the Tripura Health Services (for short 'THS') w.e.f. 14.12.1977 and was placed in-charge of the Department of Gynaecology in the Indira Gandhi Memorial Hospital (for short IGM Hospital), Agartala w.e.f. 12.08.1987. On 21.11.1990, he was promoted to Grade-II of the said service and posted as Head of the Department of Gynaecology of the said Hospital. He was, however, not happy with the working condition in the said hospital and awkward situation had often developed due to non-availability of certain incentives for proper treatment of patients for which he had to face irate patient parties. The situation gradually turned worse compelling him to proceed on leave from time to time and from 1989, he had to take long leave, spell by spell. On 14.11.1990 he resumed duties after expiry of leave. Again he went on leave on several occasions and finally on 15.05.1991, he submitted a conditional resignation expecting that the State respondents would remove difficulties and create congenial workable condition in the hospital for performing his duties properly. But on 30.05.1991, the State respondents asked him to submit resignation addressed to the Secretary of the Department as his earlier conditional resignation was addressed to the Superintendent of the hospital, who was not the competent authority. Again on 31.05.1991, the petitioner submitted another resignation letter addressed to the Secretary of the Department in continuation of his earlier resignation letter dated 15.05.1991. According to him, he received no response to his resignation letters and so, he sent a notice of demand for justice on 03.02.1992 stating that in the Department, there were no equipment, infrastructure and other materials, which were essential for running the department. On 24.02.1992, the Joint Secretary of the department informed him that the State Government could not accept his conditional resignation. It was further stated that if unconditional resignation of the petitioner was not received within one month, the department would be constrained to initiate a disciplinary proceeding for his unauthorized absence. On 29.04.1992, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Joint Secretary of the department in response to his letter dated 24.02.1992 refusing to submit unconditional resignation on the ground that the causes of his resignation were created artificially with a view to remove him from service. On 05.12.1997, the petitioner again addressed a letter to the Secretary of the department stating that he made up his mind to resume duties with further request to provide congenial atmosphere removing impediment and unfavourable situation in the hospital as pointed out by him earlier. On 10.12.1997, he resumed his duties and on 15.12.1997, he addressed a letter to the Director of Health Services about his joining duties. After joining duties, he started treating patients, but to his dismay the situation remained same and all his requests for improvement of working condition fell into deaf ear. The petitioner, however, was running a private Nursing Home with the permission of the authority, but it had to be closed. He, however, requested the Chief Medical Officer on 15.01.1998 for issuing registration/licence for running the Nursing Home again. However, he was informed by the Chief Medical Officer by his letter dated 04.02.1998 that since he was a Grade-II Medical Officer of the THS, registration/licence of the private Nursing Home could not be granted in his name. Following that reply, he requested the Chief Medical Officer to treat his application for registration as cancelled and he submitted another application in the name of his wife Smti Paramita Dutta seeking registration, which was ultimately given. However, on 16.12.1997, he sent a notice conveying his intention to go on voluntary retirement w.e.f. 01.04.1998. He also applied for 30 days leave w.e.f. 16.12.1997 to 14.01.1998 to enable him to proceed to Kolkata for his wife's treatment. On 30.03.1998, he again resumed his duties and on 31.03.1998, he relinquished his charge unilaterally on voluntary retirement, which took effect from 01.04.1998 though there was no acceptance of his notice for voluntary retirement. After submitting the application for voluntary retirement, he had pursued the matter in the office of the Director of Health Services and came to know that by order dated 13.09.1991, the Governor had been pleased to accept his resignation with retrospective effect from 01.09.1991. It was a shock and surprise to him as he was never communicated about such acceptance by the Governor and according to him, the order of acceptance was arbitrary, illegal and mala fide and, therefore, liable to be quashed. The petitioner completed 20 years of service on 14.12.1997, which made him eligible for seeking voluntary retirement w.e.f 01.04.1998. He was also entitled to all the service benefits including the retiral benefits. On 28.09.2000, he was informed that his resignation dated 15.05.1991 had been accepted w.e.f 01.09.1991 vide order dated 13.09.1991 and all his communications thereafter stood disposed of accordingly. By this writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing the notification dated 13.09.1991 by which his resignation was accepted and notification dated 28.09.2000 by which it was confirmed that his resignation was accepted w.e.f. 01.09.1991 disposing thereby all communications subsequently made by him. He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents for acceptance of his voluntary retirement dated 16.12.1997 and to pay him all arrear of salary and other service benefits including regularization of his leave.

(2.) The State respondents contested the claim of the writ petitioner contending, inter alia, that the petitioner tendered resignation raising several issues therein including the difficulties faced by him, but the resignation letter was addressed to the Superintendent of the IGM Hospital, who was not the appropriate authority. Accordingly, in reply to his said resignation dated 15.05.1991 (Annexure-2), the petitioner was intimated by the Special Secretary (Health) by his letter dated 30.05.1991 that the matter was discussed at the appropriate level and it had been decided that if the petitioner was keen to resign from THS, he should address a formal letter of resignation to the Secretary, Health. After receiving the letter, the petitioner addressed his resignation letter to the Secretary, Health on 31.05.1991 submitting his resignation once again. He mentioned in that letter that the earlier resignation letter dated 15.05.1991 should be treated as notice. This resignation letter accordingly was processed by the respondents and after expiry of the notice period of three months, the same was accepted by the Governor w.e.f. 01.09.1991. The order of acceptance dated 13.09.1991 was notified in the official Gazette (Annexure-19). It is further contended that copy of the said acceptance order was communicated to the petitioner and all other concerned authorities and, therefore, the petitioner had no reason to submit any demand notice on 03.02.1992 or make any correspondence thereafter as he ceased to be a member of the THS after the relationship was severed w.e.f. 01.09.1991. As regards the subsequent correspondences, particularly the letter dated 24.02.1992, issued by the Joint Secretary, Health (Annexure-6) intimating that the conditional resignation of the petitioner could not be accepted and requesting him to submit a conditional resignation confusing the entire matter, the respondents explained that the letter of acceptance of the resignation was dealt within a separate file of the hospital establishment and another file was processed earlier on receipt of his notice of resignation and those two files were not linked to each other creating a communication gap leading to issue of the letter dated 24.02.1992. Admitting that such letter should not have been issued after the resignation was accepted w.e.f. 01.09.1991, the respondents contended that such later communication by the Joint Secretary cannot be interpreted to have any effect of reviving the service of the petitioner or obliterating the letter of acceptance of resignation issued in the name of the Governor. As the petitioner continued to make several communications and submitted fresh prayer for voluntary retirement, which were totally uncalled for, after he ceased to be the member of the THS, the respondents issued a notification on 28.09.2000 (Annexure-20) clarifying that his resignation letter having been accepted w.e.f. 01.09.1991 by order dated 13.09.1991, he was no longer a Medical Officer of THS and that notification disposed of all communications made by him subsequent thereto. The correct factual position placed thus, the respondents contended that the prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition for acceptance of his voluntary retirement treating him in service even after 01.09.1991 deserves no consideration and should be rejected in limine.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed a rejoinder on 30.08.2003 raising again the issues regarding working condition in the hospital including insufficient light and condemned instruments, which exposed him to public assault and loss of reputation. He denied that his resignation was ever accepted or was at all served upon him. Referring to his notice dated 03.02.1992 and letters dated 29.04.1992 and 15.12.1997, he adumbrated his allegation that with mala fide intention he was put to perform operations without improving the condition in the hospital. Other averments made in the rejoinder are of no relevance for disposal of the present writ petition.