SUMITRA DEVI Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears that at one stage the temptation to be an 'instant celebrity' in the State politics proved too much for the Petitioner when she served the Respondent State with a three months' notice on June 7,1982 (Annexure P.2) to resign from the post of a Medical Officer in Haryana Medical Service (Class II). She had been appointed to that service on March 1, 1978, - -vide Annexure P.1 which contained the following two conditions on which the Respondent authorities heavily rely for their impugned action:

(2.) THE Governor of Haryana is pleased to accept the resignation of Dr. Mrs. Sumitra Devi, HCMS -II, Medical Officer, General Hospital, Hissar, with immediate effect. Other formalities in this behalf may also be observed. This will be without prejudice to the claims of the State on account of bond money (Rs. 15,000) and other claims, if any.

(3.) AS against this, the whole burden of the argument of the learned Advocate General for the Respondent authorities is that with the expiry of one month from the date of issuance of the notice, Annexure P.2, in the light of Clause 3 of Annexure P.1, the resignation is deemed to have taken effect and the Petitioner stood relieved. According to him, the passing of the impugned order Annexure P.4, was only an exercise in futility. This submission obviously - -though impliedly - -concedes the untenability of the impugned order. In support of this stand of his, the learned Advocate -General has chosen to refer to some judgments where in it has been laid down that in the case of a temporary employee's resigning by way of issuing one month's notice the relationship of employee and employer comes to an end with the expiry of the notice period, but I feel it totally unnecessary to refer to those judgments in detail as in none of these the question raised here was the subject -matter of consideration. As already indicated, the question is as to whether when an employee chooses to resign with effect from a particular future date, has the employer any jurisdiction to advance that date and to accept the resignation with effect from an earlier date? Answer to this question, to my mind, is completely provided by the ratio and the conclusion of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gopal Chandra Misra's case (supra) with the observation which have already been reproduced. The argument of the learned Advocate General that the Petitioner could not put the date of her intended resignation beyond one month from the date of issuance of the notice, in the light of condition No. 3 of Annexure P.l, is obviously of no merit . The only intendment of this condition was that the Petitioner could not validly resign or terminate the status as a Government servant on the basis of a notice of less than one month's duration. To my mind, this condition does not in any way debar the Petitioner from issuing any longer notice communicating her intention to resign from the Government job. Further I find that the argument of the learned Advocate -General that with the expiry of one month from the issuance of Annexure P.2, the Petitioner be deemed to have gone out of service, is not tenable either legally or factually. No principle or precedent has been cited before me in support of the above proposition. It is the admitted position that the Petitioner was continued to be paid her salary and emoluments for the month of June, July and August, 1982. The learned Advocate -General, however, explains that this was only a ministerial act and the subordinate officials continued to treat and pay the Petitioner emoluments even after the alleged date of acceptance of her resignation (7th July, 1982), and the Government is not responsible for the same. This has only to be stated to be rejected. He also chooses to rely on certain press and C.I.D. reports disclosing as to how the Petitioner has been indulging in mud -slinging and scathing criticism of the functioning of the party in power in Haryana and its Chief Minister, Ch. Bhajan Lal with a view to show that even the Petitioner herself has been taking to have been relieved from the bonds of service and was openly aligning herself with the Lok Dal Party from public stages and meetings with the press. All this, to my mind, is again unnecessary to judge the merits of the controversy raised in this petition. For all this the Petitioner might be liable for any disciplinary action for misconduct as a public servant in accordance with the rules governing her but this does not in anyway effect her right from withdrawing the notice or resignation Annexure P.2 within the stipulated period.