CHANDRADITYA NATH DAS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of an order dated 21.12.2006 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9690 of 2001, whereby and whereunder, the writ application of the appellant -writ petitioner came to be dismissed holding that withdrawal of his resignation from service subsequent to the acceptance of his letter of resignation was not permissible either on fact or in law and as such the appellant - writ petitioner was not entitled for the relief as prayed for by him in the writ application.

(2.) BEFORE this Court would decide the controversy in issue, it would be necessary to notice some of the relevant fact. The writ petitioner originally appointed as Clerk -cum -Cashier in Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) some time in the year 1978 came to be promoted to the post of Officer in the Bank and on 4.7.2000 he was served with a memo asking him to explain certain allegations with a direction to submit his explanation within a period of three days, as to why disciplinary actions be not initiated against him. The appellant - writ petitioner on 8.7.2000 had submitted incomplete reply seeking a few months time to submit his detail explanation. On receipt of the said incomplete explanation, the General Manager of the Bank vide letter dated 18.7.2000 had granted him fifteen days time to submit his explanation by enclosing copy of the earlier memo dated 4.7.2000. It appears that petitioner had filed an exhaustive reply to the allegations contained in the said memo on 4.7.2000 and while the same was still under consideration of the Bank, another memo dated 25.9.2000 was issued by the Bank as with regard to a separate allegation and in reply thereof the petitioner filed his letter dated 3.10.2000 in which he had not only denied the allegation but had also made direct allegation against the Chairman of the Bank that he (Chairman) seems to be desperate to remove the petitioner from the Bank and as such he was left with no other alternative but either to resign from services of the Bank or to move to higher authorities for redressal of his grievances. It is only after the aforementioned threat of resignation was given by the petitioner, a memo of charge contained in HO/DAW/255/2K -01/ 115 dated 20.10.2000 was issued against the petitioner by the Bank in purported exercise of power under Regulation 30 of Koshi Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Staff) Services Regulation, 1980. Such memo of charge accompanied by Articles of charges would go to show that the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceeding for some serious misconduct. The charges against the petitioner, however, having a direct bearing on the result of this appeal and as such the same is needed to be quoted hereinbeiow: '' ARTICLE OF CHARGES

(3.) IT is in pursuance of the said letter of the petitioner dated 23rd November, 2000 that the impugned order came to be passed on 24.11.2000, i.e, next day communicating the petitioner that his resignation have been accepted w.e.f. 1.12.2000 and such acceptance of resignation being relevant for the purposes of this appeal is quoted hereinbelow: ''