ASSISTANT BRANCH MANAGE Vs. SHANTI SWARUP SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the 'defendant's appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 15th of March, 1975,passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Patna, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration ' that the letter of acceptance of resignation dated the 17th of September, 1966 issued by the defendant no.2 was mala fide, premature, without jurisdiction illegal, void and not binding on the plaintiff and that he still continues in service.

(2.) The undisputed facts in this case are that the plaintiff was appointed as an Assistant in Class III Service under defendant no. 5, the Life Insurance Corporation of India on the 17ch of August, 1957. on the expiry of probationary period he was confirmed in the post. At the relevant time while the plaintiff was posted at Giridih under the Assistant Branch Manager (defendant no.1), the plaintiff filed an application before him on the 12th of September, 1966 praying for leave on medical grounds from the 10th of September, 1966 to the 30th of September, 1966 and expressed therein his intention to resign from the service in case he would not be in a position to resume his duties after the 30th of September, 1966 on account of his illness or for some other family reasons. The defendant no. 1 called for a medical certificate for considering the leave application and forwarded a copy of the application to defendant no.2 for his attention. Defendant no.2 under his letter dated the 17th of September, 1966 intimated the plaintiff that his resignation had beea accepted with effect from the 12th of September, 1966. The case of the plaintiff is that on the 1st of October, 1966 he went to resume his duties, but he was not allowed to join by defendant no.1 on the ground that his resignation had been accepted by the defendant no. 2. It was stated that on receipt of the letter dated the 17th of September, 1966 the plaintiff lapsed into mental imbalance necessitating his hospitalisation in Kanke Mental Hospital. The plaintiff's case further is that thereafter he made representations and appeal to the authorities concerned against the termination of his Service; but they were not accepted. There was a conciliation proceeding under the Industrial Disputes Act. There also be failed. Thereafter the plaintiff, filed this suit.

(3.) The suit Was contested by the defendants who filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit was not maintainable and there was no cause of action for the suit and that the suit was bar ed by estoppel, waiver and acquiecence. Thier case was that the plaintiff had, in an unambiguous term, expressed his intention to resign in his letter dated the 12th of September, 1966 and the same having been accepted, became final. It was also stated that the plaintiff's intention to resign became confirmed by his letter dated the 29th of September, 1968 addressed to defendant no. 2. It was contended that in the circumstances, as stated above, the plaintiff was rightly not allowed to join his duties. they disclaimed any knowledge about mental condition of the plaintiff after acceptance of his resignation. On these pleas it was prayed that the plaintiff's suit was liable to be dismised.