PRATAP KUMAR BANDYOPADHYAY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment and order, the aforesaid 2 (two) writ petitions filed by the same petitioner are being disposed of.

(2.) The facts pertaining to the case may be dilated as follows:-

(3.) The petitioner at the relevant time was employed as an Associate Professor in the National Institute of Technology, Arunachal Pradesh. Such appointment was vide an order dated 19.08.2016 under which the petitioner was on probation for a period of 2 (two) years. It is the case of the petitioner that while in service as an Associate Professor, he was given the charge of the Registrar of the institute in addition to his regular duties vide an order dated 10.07.2017. In the meantime, the respondent No. 4 was appointed as the Director of the Institute and according to the petitioner on his own whims and fancies, the respondent No. 4 had re-shuffled the charges and vide an order dated 13.02.2018, the additional charge of Registrar was removed from the petitioner and vide another order, he was made the charge of the post of Public Relation Officer (for short, 'PRO'). The petitioner has alleged that while performing his duties as PRO, he was subjected to various threats and was unable to perform his duties peacefully. The petitioner did not feel safe and ultimately vide letter dated 14.03.2018, he made a prayer to relieve him from the charge of PRO. However, as projected in the writ petitions, instead of considering the case of the petitioner, on the same date i.e. 14.03.2018, a Show-Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner as to why he had not applied for extension of his service after attaining 62 years of age. It is the case of the petitioner that such notice had disturbed him immensely and under heavy pressure on 15.03.2018 he had submitted his resignation. But, after proper application of mind and re-consideration, the petitioner decided to withdraw his resignation and accordingly, submitted a representation dated 16.03.2018. However, in the meantime, vide order dated 16.03.2018, the petitioner was informed that his resignation was accepted. It is this action which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.